Have A Happy New Year Folks!

Hope everyone will be having a blast tonight! I'm going to sit back for my annual viewing of Ghostbusters 2, a New Year's set film, which itself is set during the dawn of a new decade.

Back tomorrow with Dr. Who and the Daleks!

The Princess and the Frog (Clements and Musker 2009)

The Princess and the Frog is a film that is at war with itself, attempting to mix progressive politics and the Disney fairy tale formula together. The result is a confused mess of overtly mixed messages that will leave the viewer conflicted as to just what the filmmakers were thinking when they started crafting this film.

But damn if it isn’t entertaining to watch.

That’s the rub though. There are moments when I know I should feel offended by what is on screen, where I know that the film is thematically undermining itself at every point, and where Disney once again manages to misappropriate other cultures and twist them to their own ends. Yet what ends up on screen is such a visual marvel, with moments of well executed comedy and impressive acting, I managed to get sucked up in it all.

Set in New Orleans during the 1920s, The Princess and the Frog follows the story of Tiana, a hard working but meagrely paid waitress who is saving up to start her own restaurant, a dream she shared with her late father. Her ship seems to have come in when the arrival of the lazy Prince Naveen, who is looking to marry into the wealthy La Bouff family to replenish his fortunes, when Tiana is paid a massive sum to cook for a party held in Naveen’s honour. However, Naveen is transformed into a frog by local supernatural con man Dr. Facilier as part of a larger scheme to takeover New Orleans, and can only be reversed by the kiss of a princess. Through a series of misunderstandings, Naveen thinks Tiana is a princess, just at the moment her dream looks ready to slip away, and she agrees to kiss him in exchange for the money to save her bid on the property for the restaurant. Instead, it backfires and Tiana herself becomes a frog.

The Princess and the Frog could have been a typical Disney animated venture. What marks it as different is the film attempts to finally address the long standing failure to feature a black characters in the leading roles, and tackle the long criticized passivity of the female characters who end up achieving fairy tale endings by luck and circumstance. However, there are two major problems with the approach the filmmakers utilized in attempting to achieve these goals, resulting in a convoluted ideological mess.

The first problem is that the film attempts to fully maintain the Disney formula while at the same time attempting to alter it: it wants her to be a fully independent woman, yet still marry her off into a fairly tale ending. The result of trying to do both results in a strange back and forth in which Tiana is upheld for her virtues of hard work, only to be condemned for the very same virtues by “failing” to realize that she “needs” a man. And I am not kidding when I say that the film states that what she really needs is a man: there is a whole song and dance sequence about that very fact. The drive to work hard, be respected and successful at what she does is blacklisted as a want, not a need, and the whole endeavor comes off as a patronizing, paternalistic affair.

Worse is the manner in which the filmmakers attempt to deal with the fact that the era chosen to set the story in was a deeply and overtly racist time period. Instead of addressing the issue head on, it is nearly wiped from the film and instead is subsumed in class conflict instead. Now, while race and class politics frequently overlap and inform one another, they are NOT the same thing. New Orleans is not a far away land with a fictional history: it is a very real place with a very real history. While I certainly believe that no film is beholden to having to “accurately” represent history, as if it was even possible, such an oversight is massive, with the narrative working to negate the harsh history of America. This came home for me when leaving the theatre and I overheard a parent telling their child that New Orleans was “really just like that.” Again, I know that it isn’t the filmmaker’s place to consider the way parents choose to handle such discussions, but at least in acknowledging that major historical point in the film, it might have forced parents into holding a meaningful discussion with their children about the topic, rather than sweeping it under the rug.

Of course, the Disney fairy tale formula is rooted in European values and ideals, so I shouldn’t be surprised that the history of racism is glossed over. But this could have been avoided if Disney had at least set the film in modern times, or simply set the film in a fictional world. At least then it wouldn't have felt absolutely necessary to address the topic.

Yet, for all of its failings, The Princess and the Frog is a beautiful example of cell animation and its power in an era of computer animation. There are moments where I was in awe of the beautiful work on screen, including amazing sequence in which Dr. Facilier gives a demonstration of his power to Naveen. The characters are likable and well rounded for the most part, and the cast gamely comes out in top form. In fact, Kieth David is the honest to God hero of the film, transforming his villainous role as Dr. Facilier as the most entertaining part of the film.

Yet, I cannot feel right recommending the film to families with small children. Allowing older kids to see the film, maybe, but in all honesty, there is just too much complexity with regards to the film’s politics to mark this as a film for all to see.

As for Disney and its filmmakers: it is do or die time. Sitting on the fence with the kind of story you are telling is no longer an option. The time for the traditional princess fairy tale is dead, a point made quite well by your own film Enchanted (Lima 2007), a clever dig at how the traditional fairy tale stories you have told again and again are somewhat out of place now. You cannot keep relying on recycling old gender stereotypes and Eurocentric narratives to audiences and expect them to buy them. The world has changed, and it is about time you did to.

Updates: December 28th 2009

Hey everyone! Hope everyone has had a great holiday season and been living it up. With the end of 2009 fast approaching, wanted to make the following updates:

- By Wednesday, I will have review of The Princess and the Frog online. General verdict? Most bizarre mainstream film of the year.

- My intention is to see Guy Ritchie's latest tomorrow, and have it be my first review of 2010 of a new release.

-IF I can pull it off, real life commitments pending, the Dr. Who and the Daleks review will be posted Thursday night. If not, will post it Friday, hopefully before the Tennant final airs. The final of the special Doctor Who reviews will follow after the Sherlock Holmes review.

- That special Star Trek film series reviews will start midway through January, going one a week plus a regular review. Thanks to the Christmas season, expect that to include some classic Warner Brothers' gangster films, some Werner Herzog films, and the Marx Brothers!

Stay tuned folks!

Doctor Who: The Movie (Sax 1996)

(The following is the first in a series of three reviews intended to celebrate the end of the Russell T. Davis era of Doctor Who, which began in 2005 with the revival of the series. I will be looking at the three film adventures of the Doctor, one television film and two cinema features from the 1960s featuring Peter Cushing. This review looks at the 1996 TV film that is set between the classic series and current series.)

Doctor Who is a quirky little science-fiction-fantasy-horror-comedy-every-other-genre-you-can-think-of franchise. Focused on the adventures of a time and space travelling alien known only as The Doctor, Doctor Who is a series that has constantly evolved and changed over time, with radical shifts in format, tone, themes, characterization, cast, and media, while still managing to be the same series through it all. This is due to the simple fact that when it is boiled down, the premise is little more than an incredibly intelligent being managing to get himself into a variety of messy situations while travelling the galaxy and human history in his ship, the TARDIS.

Of course, a rich mythology has built up around the premise, from why his ship looks like a 1960s British Police Box, to the Doctor’s ability to cheat death by randomly transforming his dying body into a new healthy one (allowing for the fairly easy replacement of the lead actor when needed). Then there is the various threats the Doctor runs into every so often, from the Cybermen to the Daleks. Unlike American genre franchises though, like Star Trek and Star Wars, Doctor Who has never been obsessed with continuity to the point of alienating viewers, with the majority of stories being accessible without having seen the series before.

The simplicity of the series premise thus should have made a revival of the show in any medium a relatively simple task, even if a revival was a continuation of the original show which was cancelled in 1989. Cast a new Doctor, give him a new companion, write a new adventure mostly free of past references, and the production should have stood a solid chance of securing a new generation of viewers. The 1996 television film Doctor Who: The Movie, directed by Geoffrey Sax and released theatrically in some parts of the world (if internet sources are to be trusted), was an attempt to do just that, a full nine years before the 2005 revival by Russell T. Davis. The first (and so far, only) co-production of Doctor Who between the Britain and America, the movie was a high budget (for television) film that was intended as a back door pilot to launch a new Doctor Who series on American network television as well as the BBC.

(As a side note, the American network in question, oddly enough, was the totally inappropriate Fox Network, whose loud, crass identity is at total odds with the subversive, progressive nature of the program. Just try imagining the violence prone Jack Bower getting along with the near pacifist style of the Doctor, and you can start to imagine how odd the show being on Fox would have been.)

The story of Doctor Who: the Movie centers on the earlier noted concept of the Doctor being able to overcome death, known in the series as regeneration. Attempting to transfer the remains of his archenemy the Master back to their home planet, an elderly Doctor (Sylvester McCoy, reprising the role from the final years of the classic show) finds that the Master has survived in a new alien form, forcing the TARDIS to land in San Francisco on December 30th, 1999. Injured after landing in the middle of a gang fight, the Doctor is taken to the hospital where he is accidentally killed by surgeon Grace Holloway (Daphne Ashbrook), who is confused by the alien nature of his body. Regenerating into a new body (actor Paul McGann, Withnail and I) and suffering amnesia, the Doctor turns to Grace for help, while the Master, now possessing the body of a paramedic (Eric Roberts), seeks to take the Doctor’s body and remaining lives by utilizing the power source of the TARDIS, a power which threatens to destroy all of earth on the stroke of midnight, December 31st, 1999 if the Master is not stopped.

While I didn’t become a fan of Doctor Who until 2005, I was first introduced to the series in 1996 by this TV film during its original American broadcast (I live near the US boarder), working on math homework during the commercial breaks. Looking back to my original impressions of the film as well as my thoughts since becoming a fan, Doctor Who: the Movie is a fun, but frustrating experience. There is much in the film to enjoy and wonder at, yet nearly as much to question. As an introduction to Doctor Who, the film is a failure due to its execution. Considered as an adventure within the overall context of the franchise, the film is a solid but unremarkable effort.

While the premise of the film itself is sound enough to build a story around, the execution of the premise is confused. The film is frequently bogged down in unnecessary exposition, particularly the introduction to the film which mentions various elements of the series that are not relevant to the story at hand; the Daleks, Skaro, the number of lives a Time Lord is allowed, etc. Such information is dropped on the audience at such high speed that there is little time for new viewers to take it all in (reversing the problem the classic series sometimes had with stories dragging on too long), while for fans, some of the information only raises unanswered questions about the events preceding the film.

Furthermore, while Sylvester McCoy is my favourite Doctor by far, the time spent with him at the start of the film is questionable given the goals of the film. While the “death” of his Doctor is a vital story point, this could have easily been handled in flashbacks, thus allowing Paul McGann to take center stage right from the start of the story, as he should as the new Doctor. It takes immense skill to suddenly switch to a “new” character as the lead, but not enough time is spent with McCoy's Doctor for new viewers to really know or care about who he is. His screen time either needed to be reduced or expanded, and given that the film is only eighty-five minutes long, only one of these options could reasonably been considered at the time.

Adding to the film's problems is the relationship between the Master and his companion, Chang Lee (Yee Jee Tso). Part of the narrative hinges on the Master manipulating Lee into believing that the Doctor is evil and the Master a wronged victim looking to set things right, but not once is any real reason given for Lee to buy into the Master’s claims. He threatens to kill Lee, freely admits to causing the deaths of others, and at no point makes any real effort to cover up who he is, and yet Lee buys into his story. The audience is left to assume that either the Master or Lee are idiots (perhaps they both are), or accept that it is shoddy scripting. I understand that the point of the Lee/Master relationship is to mirror that of the Doctor's relationship with Grace, but not enough time is spent developing this relationship to make this mirror relationship work, either dramatically or thematically.

The most aggravating aspect of the film however is the moments when the filmmakers try for broad comedy and come up short. Canada’s own disastrously unfunny comedian Will Sasso (Mad TV) appears as a morgue attendant, and proceeds to overact his way into infamy by yelling at the top of his lungs, mugging for the camera, and performing comedy shtick that was dated long before he was even born. The sound design of the film also contributes to this problem, with the occasional inclusion of “wacky” sound effects that are distracting and out of place. Doctor Who has always to some degree embraced a level of camp when it fits, but the audio track carries this a little too far.

Yet, despite these failings, when Doctor Who: the Movie works, it works brilliantly, presenting ideas and concepts that would find their way into the current series. The main hero of the production is, without question, Paul McGann, in his only televised appearance as the Doctor. More than any of his predecessors, McGann’s Doctor is a man in love with life itself, infectious in his enthusiasm for even the smallest of things, and charged up with childlike wonder. The best moment of the film is a small scene between the Doctor and Grace as he tries to recall who he is during a walk in the park. Building in his enthusiasm as he remembers a moment from his childhood, without missing a beat, the Doctor suddenly declares that the shoes he is wearing fit perfectly, much to the confusion of Grace. It is a funny and sweet moment, and makes the lack of a follow up effort from McGann a tragedy of the film’s North American ratings failure.

Also, while I was critical earlier about the Master and Lee relationship, a problem which Eric Roberts and Tso’s performances contribute to, when the writing is works, they duo do rise to the occasion. One particularly fantastic moment appears late in the film as the Master, talking to a captive Doctor, makes the absurd claim that Chang Lee is the son he never had, proceeding to give a mock fatherly kiss to Lee’s forehead. Roberts and Tso have a nice chemistry in the film, and in moments like this that allow the pair to explore the strangeness of their relationship are able to achieve a level of genuine humour the "out and out" comedy scenes lack.

Kudos must also go to director Geoffrey Sax, who turns into one of the most stylish and handsome Doctor Who stories in the entire history of the program. While it is fair to note that Sax is working with far more money that the productions that proceeded it, Sax does have a good eye for composition and camera movement, making good use of symmetrical images and subtle nods to religious iconography connected to the resurrection of Jesus Christ without slamming it over the audiences head. The scene in which the Doctor regenerates is particularly well executed, cross cutting between footage of James Whales’ Frankenstein and the Doctor’s rebirth, underlining the unnatural nature of the regeneration process.

Lastly, while writer Mathew Jacobs deserves much of the blame for the structural failings of the film, he is to be credited for crafting some of the best dialogue in the history of the series, particularly when the Doctor makes observations about humanity. Jacobs manages to keep the technobabble to a minimum and focuses instead on character, making good use of his time to forge a three dimensional characters out of Grace and the Doctor in a eighty-five minute long film.

Sadly, the failings of the film in the public memory have often outweighed the strengths, and the film for a long time was viewed as one of the final nails in the coffin for the show before 2005. McGann has continue to play the Doctor in radio plays, starting early in this decade, along with three of his predecessors, but has often gone ignored in the mainstream public, overshadowed by his predecessors and successors in the role. Yet, in this one outing, McGann proves that he is among the best and most accomplished actors to ever handle the role, equal to everyone who has come before and since.

While it is but a small consolation, Doctor Who: the Movie has held much impact on the series as it is now, from the production design to pacing. Furthermore, while for years some fans tried to discount the film from continuity, Russell T. Davis set about securing the film’s place in canon in his revival by making clear references to the film, including images and footage of McGann in episodes referencing the Doctor’s history. Furthermore, within the history of the show, McGann’s Doctor has taken on a mythic feeling that other Doctor’s lack, based upon how little we truly know about him and his history before regenerating again. While McGann's Doctor in the public consciousness is low, among fans, he is a legend.

For fans, it is a film worth watching as an important point for the series. For all others, it is something to watch once one has become familiar with the universe of the saga. If you have no intent to do so though, I must recommend against seeing the film, as a negative reaction is bound to be provoked by the sheer confusion that may come with the film’s narrative.

Updates, Thanks, and Happy Holidays!

Greetings everyone!

First up: I have not yet had a chance to go see AVATAR, despite my intentions. I hope to see it soon, but since it may not be this week (Christmas folks! CHRISTMAS!!!!!), so I am moving forward my review of Doctor Who: The Movie (1996)to take its place. The Dalek films should soon follow after.

Second, I would like to take the time to thank the owners/operators of the blog "The Violent World of Parker," dedicated to the Richard Stark (aka Donald Westlake) and his Parker character. Last month, they posted a link to the Payback review I did. I had no idea about this till the past few days, and just wanted to give a big thanks to them.

Third, just a reminder to all: when posting, don't be surprised when a post does not appear, as it needs to be approved first.

Lastly, I wanted to say happy holidays to all, no matter what you celebrate, be it Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, and/or something else I am more than likely forgetting to put down, or simply don't know about. From my religious beliefs and background, I'm celebrating Christmas this Friday, hence my putting this up idiotically late, but no matter what kind or reason for celebrating you are getting up to this time of year, be safe and enjoy yourselves. And I mean be safe: I can't risk losing my small audience at all! ;)

Being There (Ashby 1979)

Being There, Hal Ashby’s 1979 comic-drama masterpiece is one of those films that have been discussed to the point that it is really hard to bring anything new to the table. From the satirical nature of the story, to Peter Seller’s brilliant performance, and to the notorious final shot, Being There is a film that has been talked to death, yet we still feel a need to try and say something about it. If that isn’t the mark of a brilliant film, what else is?

The film is the tale of a middle aged man named Chance, played by Peter Sellers, who has lived his entire life inside the confines of a wealthy man’s home, alternating between watching TV and working in the garden. He cannot write, cannot read, and only seems to be capable of imitating behavior presented on television. When the wealthy, elderly man dies, Chance is thrust out into the world for the first time, wearing the clothing of the deceased man. Through a series of, um, chance meetings, Chance ends up in the residence of Ben and Eve Rand (Melvyn Douglas and Shirley MacLaine), a wealthy couple with connections to the President of the United States, all whom mistake Chance for being a highly intelligent, warm and understanding individual instead of the near cipher that he is.

Right about here, I would start performing an analysis of the film, trying to grapple with some of its intellectual complexities. Perhaps talk about the playful biblical allusions in the film which give it an almost mythic feeling, all while discussing how the concept of the simulacra contextualizes this biblical inversion. Or maybe I could just rant about how brilliant Ashby and Sellers work is here, this being Sellers last fully completed film and Ashby’s last great (and even just plain solid) film. I could, if I wanted to, try and compare Being There to Ashby’s other works, or films of a similar nature.

However, I can’t help but feel I would be doing Being There a total disservice. This is a film built on observation and nuance, where Ashby fills every frame with small details that require the viewer to spend time diligently studying the film. While no film is objective, Ashby works hard to avoid dominating over the ideas put forth in the film with his own perspective, seeking to embody Roland Barthes’ concept of the writerly text (I hate the literary bias the term holds), where the viewer must truly work to bring meaning to the text. The film is filled to the brims with possibility, but it takes the viewer to bring it to living life.

For myself, I oddly find Being There a comforting experience. As much as the film is a critical reflection upon society and culture, I don’t feel that the film is entirely condemning of the society upon which it reflects. The world is one that simply is: for all its faults, for all its failings, it’s our (well, Western society’s) world and the one we are stuck with. Is Chance’s existence any more absurd than our own? And do we not project onto others our own thoughts, feelings and ideas? At some point in time, are we not a Chance to somebody? In that sense, the film is an acceptance of flawed humanity and miscommunication.

This is a much shorter review than I usually write, but I feel, just this one time, that my simply telling you to go see the film is the best thing I can do. Watch it with large groups; watch it with strangers; watch it with loved ones and, hell, even watch it with people you just plain dislike. When it is all done, start talking. I’m sure you’ll all have something fascinating to say.

Review to be Posted Late Tonight/Early Thur.

Sorry folks for the delay. Day job has been a bit getting in the way a bit the past few days. Will be up tonight, but might be just after midnight.