Sunday, April 9, 2017
Book of Mormon + Disney
Frozen 2??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/frozen-2-plot-release-date-songs-plus-everything-else-need/
It is coming! I am SO excited for Frozen 2 and I know it'll be great.
It is coming! I am SO excited for Frozen 2 and I know it'll be great.
Frozen Film Response
As I am typing up this post I have "Love is an Open Door" on full blast. This was probably my 7th time watching Frozen (with the first 6 times having taken place all in the same week that I originally watched it). Frozen took the world by storm when it first came out in 2013, and I was convinced that I wouldn't love it (and I also systematically refuse to waste money seeing movies in theaters), so it took me a little while to see it in the theater. But once I finally did, I too became victim and fed myself to the massive Frozen shark-jaw. I actually blogged about it immediately and thought it would be funny to include here to show my TRUE "film response" immediately upon the first viewing:
_______
Frozen is about two sisters that are princesses of the kingdom of Arendelle. The older sister, Elsa, possesses powers to freeze things and create ice but she keeps them a secret. When Elsa becomes queen of Arendelle she runs away after accidentally displaying her powers in front of the whole kingdom, leaving Arendelle in a permanent state of winter. Her younger sister, Anna, runs after her to try to get her to come back home and undo the curse. Along the way Anna meets a young ice seller, Kristoff, and a talking snowman, Olaf. When Anna accidentally gets a piece of ice driven through her heart, she is told that she will freeze to death unless saved by an act of true love.
Everyone walks into a Disney movie expecting to see some form of a princess fall in love with some form of a prince because that is typical Disney. And what's bad about that? We love it. They do it. We love it more. They do it again. It never fails because Disney always adds something to it. My favorite Disney movies though are the ones that give you something unexpected. The Lion King? Toy Story? Peter Pan? All of these are movie gold. Not that movies like Tangled and Beauty and the Beast aren't, but these stand out to me because they provide a different take on a love story.
In 2012, Disney released Brave. This movie was a love story, but about the love of a mom and her daughter. I'm sure this appealed to many people, but it was not done to my taste and I was quite disappointed with it. In a similar fashion, Frozen decided to tell a different kind of love story. The love between two sisters. And unlike with Brave, I was not disappointed.
At the beginning of Frozen, Anna meets the man of her dreams, Han. She leaves him in charge of Arendelle while she goes to find her sister. In the mountains, she meets a man named Kristoff and the audience slowly watches these two fall in love. I've never had to deal with so many "awwws" from the chair next to me (cough Sarah cough) as much as I did during this film. After getting the piece of ice driven through her heart, Anna sets off to find Han so that he can perform his kiss of true love and she will not freeze to death.
I was told by a friend that the villain is a surprising one in this movie. Because Han had been portrayed as this incredibly nice guy and protector of the country he was left with I expected him to turn out to be the "villain." I thought Han would turn out to not be her true love and we would watch Kristoff give her the kiss that melts Anna's heart. What I got was so much more.
When Anna realizes that Han does not actually love her she understands she has only moments before dying. The audience watches as Anna chases after Kristoff and Kristoff chases after Anna. Right before they are about to embrace and seemingly kiss, Anna notices her older sister Elsa with a sword held over her by Han. In a single moment, Anna decides to sacrifice herself and save her sister instead of receiving her true love's kiss and living happily. With Anna frozen to death and Elsa crying over her, the audience watches as she begins melting while Olaf the snowman cries, "An act of true love!"
An act of true love to change her heart was required. Many expected Kristoff to run into her arms to save her, but it was Anna that saved herself by loving her sister enough to die for her.
One of Disney's greatest triumphs in the whole movie was the character of Elsa. I cannot think of a movie that Disney has made with a character that experienced such inner turmoil. We watch her shut out her closest friend, Anna, because she feels so alone in the world. She lacks the confidence to melt the winter that she has left Arendelle in and isolates herself from everybody else because she feels she is a threat to everyone's safety. One line that she sung really stuck out to me -"No escape from the storm inside." Elsa feels like there is a monster inside of her. One that will not leave. I think this character is universal. No, maybe not everyone feels alone because they are the only person with the ability to freeze a country, but everyone feels alone in some way. And just as Elsa realized that what she felt was okay and that love can overcome anything, so can other people.
My personal favorite character though? Olaf, the snowman! Hilarious. Cute. All around perfection. Anna was also great as she had a personality different from what we've seen before in Disney princeses. An awkward, funny girl who knows what's important.
My one criticism? KRISTOFF! The character was great of course, no complaints there, but come on Disney! Jonathan Groff, the voice actor, is an incredibly talented singer and what did he get? One song. I personally would like to listen to an entire soundtrack just by him but as I realize that's asking too much, I think 2 songs would have sufficed.
As I bring this blog post to an end I leave my millions and millions of readers with this... Go. Watch. Frozen.
___________
So yes, I clearly still loved it and a lot of this holds up. I do feel very strongly about the strong story that was told about social stigma with Elsa and felt they did a great job showcasing the effects of "inner evil" creating social isolation. However, I firmly believe though that Anna is the greatest triumph of the movie. She is one of the most relatable, hilarious heroines that we have come across and I love whenever a princess has reddish hair because its not as common. And, having just watched Wreck It-Ralph, I remember the whole time just being reminded that there is no better "villain" reveal than this movie. Sure, he wasn't as developed, but I think that is what made the surprise land so well.
From a racial perspective, it is very easy to point out the lack of diversity in this film. But I know that Disney wanted to represent the Scandinavian countries and frankly, it is probably pretty true to form that those countries are not going to have a lot of diversity. Anna's hair-color was probably stretching the truth a little bit! But, it does leave a lot of questions about why this film was so much more popular than The Princess and the Frog.
I think that this is one of the strongest showings of gender in a Disney movie and I am so happy that this is the one little girls became obsessed with. I really hope that the financial success of this movie will forever be a fallback when Disney looks at the foundation of a "successful" movie.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Maleficent Film Response
Maleficent was a live action re-working of Sleeping Beauty. It was entirely from the perspective of the "villain" and reimagined the story when Maleficent was not as villainous as she seemed.
I always love the concept of a "flipped" story. Wicked was one of the first productions I ever saw that did this, and it has turned into a new pattern and trend in which people constantly reimagine the villain as really being the hero of the story. I also think that if there is one story in which the original would not translate to a super exciting live-action remake, it is Sleeping Beauty. So I totally understand why Disney wanted to tell a different story.
Just like the original Sleeping Beauty, I found myself kind of bored throughout. From a movie critic perspective, I totally was underwhelmed and felt that the action was more CGI-dependent instead of plot-dependent. I also felt the filmmakers had a few golden characters that they almost refused to flesh out. Watching this movie definitely felt like more of an assignment than previous Disney movies that we have watched in class. Because despite Angelina Jolie being nearly perfect casting as Maleficent (though her contour was incredibly distracting throughout), it wasn't enough for me to feel invested in her.
The opening of the film showcased King Stefan's manipulation of the poor fairy Maleficent. They fell in love as children, and Stefan used that when trying to kill her to become the next King. He ultimately couldn't do it, and cut off her wings instead, and Maleficent was so crippled by this (physically and mentally) that she decided to take revenge on Stefan and showcase through a curse on his child how brutal his actions were. Stefan was an insanely dislikable character (and ugly), so the audience was supposed to sympathize with Maleficent when she took revenge. However, the whole thing came across as super petty to me. Though she was undeniably strong and free willed throughout, I did feel as though Angelina Jolie's character was super petty and her actions weren't warranted. I also thought it was noteworthy that the filmmaker's story arch was a girl upset because she didn't get the boy. I do think that is interesting to point out, especially as one of the stereotypical "negative" qualities of a female is her jealousy. You could almost perceive the filmmakers as attempting to make a strong female character, but still being unable to make that character without wrapping her up in a male's plot.
My favorite character was Maleficent's person-bird, Diaval. I was hoping throughout the film that something would come of him, but as I said in my criticism with the lack of fleshed-out characters, nothing ever did! I would have LOVED if he was a younger actor and ultimately was the one to fall in love with Aurora, or even if they made a Maleficient-Diaval romance, but unfortunately, they never did. I know that they didn't want to do this in order to create an untraditional "love story" (that between a mother and her child), but considering Disney had just done this with Brave, that kind of "surprise! It's a non traditional love!" no longer felt exciting or interesting to me (though I totally concede the point that in order to deconstruct the traditional "fairy tale love" you can't always focus on a heterosexual romance).
Another criticism I had is that the three GREATEST characters in the original animation (Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather) were like, totally irrelevant and not nearly as fantastic or witty as the humor incorporated decades ago. There awesomeness certainly should not have been something sacrificed for the live-action remake.
So ultimately, despite just the overall criticism of it being boring, I still felt that you could find some of the stereotypical gender problems in this film as in the first one, such as the reliance of making a male character to catalyze the plot. But of course, the feminist backstory deconstruction made it "progressive" in other senses. By showing Maleficent being Aurora's true love, it highlighted the importance of a specifically female relationship in a child's life, regardless if that female is the mother or not.
I always love the concept of a "flipped" story. Wicked was one of the first productions I ever saw that did this, and it has turned into a new pattern and trend in which people constantly reimagine the villain as really being the hero of the story. I also think that if there is one story in which the original would not translate to a super exciting live-action remake, it is Sleeping Beauty. So I totally understand why Disney wanted to tell a different story.
Just like the original Sleeping Beauty, I found myself kind of bored throughout. From a movie critic perspective, I totally was underwhelmed and felt that the action was more CGI-dependent instead of plot-dependent. I also felt the filmmakers had a few golden characters that they almost refused to flesh out. Watching this movie definitely felt like more of an assignment than previous Disney movies that we have watched in class. Because despite Angelina Jolie being nearly perfect casting as Maleficent (though her contour was incredibly distracting throughout), it wasn't enough for me to feel invested in her.
The opening of the film showcased King Stefan's manipulation of the poor fairy Maleficent. They fell in love as children, and Stefan used that when trying to kill her to become the next King. He ultimately couldn't do it, and cut off her wings instead, and Maleficent was so crippled by this (physically and mentally) that she decided to take revenge on Stefan and showcase through a curse on his child how brutal his actions were. Stefan was an insanely dislikable character (and ugly), so the audience was supposed to sympathize with Maleficent when she took revenge. However, the whole thing came across as super petty to me. Though she was undeniably strong and free willed throughout, I did feel as though Angelina Jolie's character was super petty and her actions weren't warranted. I also thought it was noteworthy that the filmmaker's story arch was a girl upset because she didn't get the boy. I do think that is interesting to point out, especially as one of the stereotypical "negative" qualities of a female is her jealousy. You could almost perceive the filmmakers as attempting to make a strong female character, but still being unable to make that character without wrapping her up in a male's plot.
My favorite character was Maleficent's person-bird, Diaval. I was hoping throughout the film that something would come of him, but as I said in my criticism with the lack of fleshed-out characters, nothing ever did! I would have LOVED if he was a younger actor and ultimately was the one to fall in love with Aurora, or even if they made a Maleficient-Diaval romance, but unfortunately, they never did. I know that they didn't want to do this in order to create an untraditional "love story" (that between a mother and her child), but considering Disney had just done this with Brave, that kind of "surprise! It's a non traditional love!" no longer felt exciting or interesting to me (though I totally concede the point that in order to deconstruct the traditional "fairy tale love" you can't always focus on a heterosexual romance).
Another criticism I had is that the three GREATEST characters in the original animation (Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather) were like, totally irrelevant and not nearly as fantastic or witty as the humor incorporated decades ago. There awesomeness certainly should not have been something sacrificed for the live-action remake.
So ultimately, despite just the overall criticism of it being boring, I still felt that you could find some of the stereotypical gender problems in this film as in the first one, such as the reliance of making a male character to catalyze the plot. But of course, the feminist backstory deconstruction made it "progressive" in other senses. By showing Maleficent being Aurora's true love, it highlighted the importance of a specifically female relationship in a child's life, regardless if that female is the mother or not.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Wreck It Ralph Response
Have you ever watched an animated movie, and been so distracted by the voice actors that all you can think about is the fact that there is a person "behind the screen" voicing the character? That was what the hour and 40 minutes of Wreck It Ralph felt like for me. The cast was so star studded that I was continuously distracted (Jane Lynch, Mindy Kaling, Sarah Silverman).
In addition to this distraction, the premise of Wreck It Ralph is not my favorite. I am not a huge video game player (in fact, I never was allowed to play any kind of video game growing up) so I didn't find the characters recognizable or nostalgic. I also, in general, found a lot of the characters to be annoying. However, by the end of the movie, I found that I had enjoyed it. Definitely not a favorite, but the twist ending made the movie more exciting, and a couple of the characters cracked me up (Fix It Felix and the green Sour Bill in particular).
I think the biggest takeaway from this film is supposed to be social stigma. This was apparent in two characters, Ralph and Vanillope, and I think they were supposed to get the audience to challenge the idea of group think. One of the most apparent scenes of this phenomenon was at the beginning when Wreck It Ralph fails to be invited to his own 30th anniversary party. Clearly Felix likes Ralph, but doesn't invite him because other people say that he is a "bad guy." (The awkwardness of Felix not wanting to invite Ralph in but Ralph hanging around was palpable. So real and hilarious.) By showing the psychological affect other's meanness was having on our two leads, the filmmakers were trying to get the audience to think twice before being mean to someone just because it seems like you are supposed to, or because they are different.
The twist ending. I don't think I saw it coming, and it was good, but it was not completely mind blowing. I think it would have been even more shocking if they had given no hint at King Candy's evilness (like the reveal of Hans in Frozen!), but it still was really cool that they incorporated Turbo, a seemingly irrelevant character, into the major plot.
My biggest gripe all in all with the film was that they incorporated GIANT FLYING COCKROACHES. WHAT was the point of that? Cockroaches are my biggest fear (i have had nightmares about them and am getting queazy just typing the word), and I felt that ruined my enjoyment of the plot B with Jane Lynch's character.
There were some hilarious one liners and Sour Bill is SUCH an underrated character. But the premise is just something that I'm never going to inherently love. However, I enjoyed it more than I would have expected had people not told me it was a great movie. A unique film in the Disney eschaton and a well executed film.
In addition to this distraction, the premise of Wreck It Ralph is not my favorite. I am not a huge video game player (in fact, I never was allowed to play any kind of video game growing up) so I didn't find the characters recognizable or nostalgic. I also, in general, found a lot of the characters to be annoying. However, by the end of the movie, I found that I had enjoyed it. Definitely not a favorite, but the twist ending made the movie more exciting, and a couple of the characters cracked me up (Fix It Felix and the green Sour Bill in particular).
I think the biggest takeaway from this film is supposed to be social stigma. This was apparent in two characters, Ralph and Vanillope, and I think they were supposed to get the audience to challenge the idea of group think. One of the most apparent scenes of this phenomenon was at the beginning when Wreck It Ralph fails to be invited to his own 30th anniversary party. Clearly Felix likes Ralph, but doesn't invite him because other people say that he is a "bad guy." (The awkwardness of Felix not wanting to invite Ralph in but Ralph hanging around was palpable. So real and hilarious.) By showing the psychological affect other's meanness was having on our two leads, the filmmakers were trying to get the audience to think twice before being mean to someone just because it seems like you are supposed to, or because they are different.
The twist ending. I don't think I saw it coming, and it was good, but it was not completely mind blowing. I think it would have been even more shocking if they had given no hint at King Candy's evilness (like the reveal of Hans in Frozen!), but it still was really cool that they incorporated Turbo, a seemingly irrelevant character, into the major plot.
My biggest gripe all in all with the film was that they incorporated GIANT FLYING COCKROACHES. WHAT was the point of that? Cockroaches are my biggest fear (i have had nightmares about them and am getting queazy just typing the word), and I felt that ruined my enjoyment of the plot B with Jane Lynch's character.
There were some hilarious one liners and Sour Bill is SUCH an underrated character. But the premise is just something that I'm never going to inherently love. However, I enjoyed it more than I would have expected had people not told me it was a great movie. A unique film in the Disney eschaton and a well executed film.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Disney acquiring Netflix?
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4059598-walt-disney-fun-just-begun
^BIGGEST TAKEAWAY: OMG Disney might acquire Netflix?! That is so cool and insane how powerful of a conglomerate it is. It honestly is beyond my comprehension.
^BIGGEST TAKEAWAY: OMG Disney might acquire Netflix?! That is so cool and insane how powerful of a conglomerate it is. It honestly is beyond my comprehension.
Peter Pan Re-watch
Peter Pan is a fantastic Disney film. It doesn't feel like it would be one of the oldest ones ever created because it seems particularly timeless as I still hear of so many girls and boys saying that it is their favorite. My little sister, in particular, is obsessed with Peter Pan and still says that he was her first "crush." I too, was in love with Jeremy Sumter's portrayal of Peter in the 2003 live action adaptation.
That being said, I wanted to go back and re-watch the movie with the new "critical" eye I have developed from this class. I remember, of course, the "Indians", and I figured that our modern viewpoint would render those portrayals problematic. But I was particularly interested in if a lot of Disney tropes or patterns would be apparent with gender. Of course this movie was created in the 50s, with a different standard at the time for what was deemed acceptable, but I still wanted to approach it with my knowledge of what Disney would create in the future. One of the main things I wanted to focus on was evil versus goodness in the movie and how they fit into the larger Disney pattern of both.
What I found, in my opinion, is that the portrayal of evil in the film contradicts a lot of the patterns that we have seen but also simultaneously reinforces a stereotypical attitude of what creates a "good" girl.
George Darling and Captain Hook
Now, these are probably who we can consider far and away the most "evil" characters in the movie. Once a person becomes older, the connection is clear - Hook is the alternate reality version of George Darling. They both have two defining qualities- obsession and anger. However, I would argue that George Darling comes across as FAR more "evil" than Hook, despite Hook actively attempting to full on murder little children versus George just yelling at his children. Why is that? Now, as I argued in the first essay I turned into this class, audience members have a hard time watching villains who abuse children (The Rescuers and The Hunchback of Notre Dame). But, as I also argued in that essay, an audience is able to reconcile the abusive actions in their head if some barrier is placed between the child and the adult. In this case there are two reasons the audience doesn't really take the abuse, or Captain Hook, too seriously; he is incredibly stupid and he is wrapped up in some fantasy world. The fantastic setting of Neverland hints to the audience that they shouldn't really believe anything they are seeing (such as flying, mermaids, or abusive adults) and Captain Hook's sheer stupidity calms the audience down because he is clearly unable to comprehend what exactly it would take to succeed in his malicious intentions.
George Darling on the other hand comes across as far more detestable, and is hard to stomach on a television screen. That is because there is no barrier between the children and him, making the audience unable to reconcile his personality in their mind. The setting he is in is hyper real. He is the head of a standard family living in London. And his children are extremely sweet and good, yet he is still mean to them. He still yells at them and is obsessed at depriving them of their dreams (remaining together, imagine up wild stories, having fun with their dog, etc). His anger issues are far less justified and are hyper realistic, thus making him the worse of the two villains.
George Darling is interesting because usually the Disney pattern is to eliminate the mother entirely, or create her as the unreconcilable abuser. By making a present, sweet mom with an evil Dad, Disney definitely created unique villains in Peter Pan.
Wendy and Tinker Bell
Unlike the pretty progressive villain portrayals, Disney was routine with their two lead female characters. Though Tinker Bell has some hilarious moments, and Wendy is likable and precious throughout, they both reinforce typical, unprogressive views of women. Wendy is admired specifically because of her mother-like qualities. Though she is nice, and she is responsible, these are only ultimately seen as good because they contribute to why she would be a great mother, not a great person.
Tinker Bell on the other hand embodies a lot of what is seen as stereotypically "negative" amongst females. She is markedly jealous of Wendy, and is shallow. These are in fact the first two qualities we are given with Think; she is mad that a new woman has entered Peter Pan's life and tries to get her killed, and freaks out early on because she is scared her butt looks too big. Though she ultimately turns around and helps Wendy, it is almost like she does this despite her typical womanly qualities, not because of any inherent goodness.
Conclusion
I absolutely love Peter Pan and think it is one of the most magical, pro-imagination children's films out there (also baby Michael is SO cute). I also think it ultimately sends a great message of not needing to grow up too fast. However, looking at it from a critical perspective does result in one seeing a weird dichotomy for women. The villains are markedly male in character, personality, and appearance. This could be seen as liberal and progressive because it diverges from the early pattern Disney set of female villains. However, the two main females throughout the movie are defined by stereotypical qualities with the good maternal ones present in Wendy and the bad, shallow ones present in Tinker Bell.
That being said, I wanted to go back and re-watch the movie with the new "critical" eye I have developed from this class. I remember, of course, the "Indians", and I figured that our modern viewpoint would render those portrayals problematic. But I was particularly interested in if a lot of Disney tropes or patterns would be apparent with gender. Of course this movie was created in the 50s, with a different standard at the time for what was deemed acceptable, but I still wanted to approach it with my knowledge of what Disney would create in the future. One of the main things I wanted to focus on was evil versus goodness in the movie and how they fit into the larger Disney pattern of both.
What I found, in my opinion, is that the portrayal of evil in the film contradicts a lot of the patterns that we have seen but also simultaneously reinforces a stereotypical attitude of what creates a "good" girl.
George Darling and Captain Hook
Now, these are probably who we can consider far and away the most "evil" characters in the movie. Once a person becomes older, the connection is clear - Hook is the alternate reality version of George Darling. They both have two defining qualities- obsession and anger. However, I would argue that George Darling comes across as FAR more "evil" than Hook, despite Hook actively attempting to full on murder little children versus George just yelling at his children. Why is that? Now, as I argued in the first essay I turned into this class, audience members have a hard time watching villains who abuse children (The Rescuers and The Hunchback of Notre Dame). But, as I also argued in that essay, an audience is able to reconcile the abusive actions in their head if some barrier is placed between the child and the adult. In this case there are two reasons the audience doesn't really take the abuse, or Captain Hook, too seriously; he is incredibly stupid and he is wrapped up in some fantasy world. The fantastic setting of Neverland hints to the audience that they shouldn't really believe anything they are seeing (such as flying, mermaids, or abusive adults) and Captain Hook's sheer stupidity calms the audience down because he is clearly unable to comprehend what exactly it would take to succeed in his malicious intentions.
George Darling on the other hand comes across as far more detestable, and is hard to stomach on a television screen. That is because there is no barrier between the children and him, making the audience unable to reconcile his personality in their mind. The setting he is in is hyper real. He is the head of a standard family living in London. And his children are extremely sweet and good, yet he is still mean to them. He still yells at them and is obsessed at depriving them of their dreams (remaining together, imagine up wild stories, having fun with their dog, etc). His anger issues are far less justified and are hyper realistic, thus making him the worse of the two villains.
George Darling is interesting because usually the Disney pattern is to eliminate the mother entirely, or create her as the unreconcilable abuser. By making a present, sweet mom with an evil Dad, Disney definitely created unique villains in Peter Pan.
Wendy and Tinker Bell
Unlike the pretty progressive villain portrayals, Disney was routine with their two lead female characters. Though Tinker Bell has some hilarious moments, and Wendy is likable and precious throughout, they both reinforce typical, unprogressive views of women. Wendy is admired specifically because of her mother-like qualities. Though she is nice, and she is responsible, these are only ultimately seen as good because they contribute to why she would be a great mother, not a great person.
Tinker Bell on the other hand embodies a lot of what is seen as stereotypically "negative" amongst females. She is markedly jealous of Wendy, and is shallow. These are in fact the first two qualities we are given with Think; she is mad that a new woman has entered Peter Pan's life and tries to get her killed, and freaks out early on because she is scared her butt looks too big. Though she ultimately turns around and helps Wendy, it is almost like she does this despite her typical womanly qualities, not because of any inherent goodness.
Conclusion
I absolutely love Peter Pan and think it is one of the most magical, pro-imagination children's films out there (also baby Michael is SO cute). I also think it ultimately sends a great message of not needing to grow up too fast. However, looking at it from a critical perspective does result in one seeing a weird dichotomy for women. The villains are markedly male in character, personality, and appearance. This could be seen as liberal and progressive because it diverges from the early pattern Disney set of female villains. However, the two main females throughout the movie are defined by stereotypical qualities with the good maternal ones present in Wendy and the bad, shallow ones present in Tinker Bell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)