Movies

Dreamcatcher (2003) a (very belated) review

Another oldie but goody, from July 2011.

When I first heard about the movie Dreamcatcher, it was about to be released into theaters back in 2003.

First, though, an admission: I have never been a big fan of Stephen King’s novels.  I’ve read a few, though they were “OK” at best, but found more enjoyment out of some of his short stories.  As far as Dreamcatcher was concerned, I had no awareness at all about the book until the film was released.

Nonetheless, the commercials had me intrigued.  For, while I freely admit to not being a terribly big fan of Mr. King’s novels, I cannot dispute the fact that there had been some very good movies based on his works, including, but not limited to, The Shining (my favorite), Carrie, The Dead Zone, and Salem’s Lot. Sure, there have also been many pretty bad adaptations (including the awful Stephen King himself directed Maximum Overdrive), but I was curious to give the movie a try.

Unfortunately, I missed the film’s original theatrical run yet remained interested in seeing it despite some withering reviews.  Last night, I had the chance to do so, nearly a full decade after the original release.

Before I get to my reaction to Dreamcatcher, let me point out the film was written by Lawrence Kasdan and William Goldman.  It was directed by Mr. Kasdan. William Goldman, for those who are unaware, is a living legend in the movie business.  His screenplays include the wonderful Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Harper, All The President’s Men, The Stepford Wives, Marathon Man, etc. etc.  Mr. Kasdan, however, is hardly a slouch when it comes to movie history.  He wrote the screenplays to The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Body Heat, etc. etc. and directed such notable films such as the aforementioned Body Heat, The Big Chill, Silverado, and The Accidental Tourist.

So the idea that these three individuals, Mr. King, Mr. Goldman, and Mr. Kasdan were behind Dreamcatcher was, to say the least, a potentially fascinating mix. In front of the camera were some at the time strong up-and-coming actors such as Thomas Jane, Timothy Olyphant, Jason Lee, and, as the movie’s chief (human) antagonist, another screen legend, Morgan Freeman. With that much talent both in front of and behind the cameras, what could possibly go wrong?

Quite a bit.

Now, the movie’s direction is pretty good. The scenery/location is nice. The effects are quite good, even if some of the computer graphics show their age (this is hardly a knock as computer graphic technology has progressed considerably in the years since its introduction). The acting by all the principals is also for the most part good.

Which leaves the story.

…man oh man that story…

For the third time: I’m no huge fan of Stephen King’s novels. I never read the book this movie was based on and therefore don’t know how faithful/unfaithful it is to Mr. King’s novel. But even assuming the movie was a very radical departure from the book, the bottom line is that the plot of Dreamcatcher, the movie, is a mish-mash of story ideas and concepts seen far too many times before in the works of Stephen King himself and other, far better sci-fi and horror films.

What you have with Dreamcatcher is a movie that features elements of Stand By Me in a shotgun marriage with Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Alien/Aliens. It is a mess of a film that moves from the present to the past and never really builds up enough steam to get us involved in almost everything that’s happening. We get the typical King flawed childhood characters grown up: In their youth, they were a “gang” of misfits who swear a lifelong pledge to be friends. They get into some scary mischief (in this case, they stop a trio of bullies from beating up a mentally disabled boy) and, as a result, find there’s more to their new-found friend than meets the eye. Despite his mental challenges, the beat up boy has a psychic gift, of sorts, which he shares with the other four boys who save him from the bullies (why he does this, given the movie’s final revelations, is a mystery that is never really resolved. Suffice to say, there is no real reason for this boy to be…a boy).

Fast forward twenty some years later and the four boys, now equally damaged grownups (one is suicidal, one is a drunk, one appears to have no real job, and the other is *gasp* a student counselor), head out to a hunting lodge for their annual “mischievous boys turned into damaged men annual hangout”. They miss their childhood and they miss their childhood friend (is he dead? We’re not certain…at least yet). They hang out and eat cooked ground beef and hunt (although they never are shown firing so much as a shot at any animal). Things are going hunky dory until the alien invaders show up.

Yup, alien invaders.

These invaders are both spores ingested through breathing or worm-like creatures with very, very sharp teeth. Soon, the military cordons off the forest and the entire surrounding area, and the man in charge, Colonel Kurtz (Morgan Freeman) reveals he’s been fighting alien invaders for over twenty years now and intends to wipe out every contaminated human and animal in the “zone”.  Given the character’s name, an obvious shout out to Heart Of Darkness, it should come as no surprise that the man is more than a little unhinged.

Now comes the really sick/stupid part: The people infected by the alien spores at the onset of their condition start to get really gassy.  Really gassy.

They burp and fart and their stomachs swell up grotesquely. When the alien spore within them finally emerges as a sharp-toothed worm, it does this by explosively emerging…from the victim’s ass.

You read that right: The worm explodes out of the victim’s ass.

There are times I fantasize walking into an agent or movie studio executive’s office and pitching a story concept and hoping against hope that the pitch will result in a green light. I’m a nobody to the movie industry…I have a few books out there which I think are pretty good and one of my stories, The Dark Fringe, has spent the past few years being shopped around the studios by the people behind Cowboys & Aliens and might, if I’m fortunate enough, get made into a film one day. At this point in time, however, I’m a nobody to the studios and for all intents and purposes my fantasy of movie glory remains just that.

So I’m thinking:  If Stephen King had never written a novel called Dreamcatcher and I was the one who came up with the concept of the story and pitched it to an agent or movie studio executive, what would the results have been?  I strongly suspect that by the time I got to the point of saying “…and the alien worms come out the victim’s asses…” they would call security and have me thrown out of their offices. Hell, if I were them, I’d certainly do so!

Further, I wonder what would happen if I had stepped into a time machine and approached Mr. Goldman circa 1968, when he’s hard at work on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and tell him that one day in the future he’ll be credited with writing a screenplay about alien creatures who explode out of people’s asses…and the film is meant to be a horror movie and not a comedy, I suspect he might well have called the cops on me too.

But because we’re talking about a movie based on a book by Stephen King and written by Lawrence Kasdan and William Goldman and directed by Mr. Kasdan, reputations, I strongly suspect, precede the work itself. Getting a movie like Dreamcatcher financed and off the ground probably involved studio executives looking at the names associated with the project rather than the project itself.

I just can’t believe anyone in their right mind would read the screenplay or hear a pitch to this movie and decide to go for it. Even as a lark.

And when one of the film’s biggest “suspense” sequences involves one of the characters sitting on a toilet and thus holding the lid down to keep one of those killer worms from escaping (Can you imagine Alfred Hitchcock working on something like this?!), and the character, knowing full well his life is in mortal danger, is nonetheless tempted to leave that lid for just one second because he has to get a toothpick from the ground to chew on.  Because, you know, it’s perfectly logical that when your life is in mortal danger you just have to do something that stupid…

At least in the Friday the 13th films, the cannon fodder teenagers risked their lives for something much more worthwhile…getting laid!

The only people I could recommend this film to is the MST3K crowd. You may be able to get more enjoyment out of laughing at -but not with– the film, if nothing else.

Books/Literature, Comic Books/Graphic Novels

Kamandi Omnibus #1, the review

This post originally appeared in October of 2011.  A bit of news:  The second volume of the Jack Kirby Kamandi issues, collecting the rest of his run, is scheduled to be released later this year.

To some degree, reviewing the Kamandi Omnibus Vol #1, released last week, is almost pointless.  I have all of the Jack Kirby written/drawn issues of the series (indeed, even the 19 issues after he left with issue #40 plus the 2 issues never released but collected in the Cancelled Comics Cavalcade. Yes, I’m a BIG fan of Kamandi!) and I pretty much know the book backwards and forwards.

Yet seeing the first 20 issues all together in one volume, I recognized something that hadn’t really occurred to me until they were read all together: This was Jack Kirby doing comic book versions of movies. Many movies.

The primary movie source material is obvious: Kamandi, the first issue of which was released in 1972, borrowed quite a bit from the then very popular original Planet of the Apes movies. Indeed, there were many back in the day who dismissed this series out right because of the fact that it borrowed so heavily from those movies. The series, after all, featured a “boy” in a post-apocalyptic world where animals (including, of course, apes!) were sentient and humans were viewed as lower life forms. The cover to the first issue of the original series also had strong echoes to the ending of the original Planet of the Apes, at least with regard to that famous statue present at that movie’s end, you will also find references to, among others, the original King Kong, The Andromeda Strain, Ben Hur, Westworld, various Gladiator movies, etc. etc.  And if you look beyond that, you’ll also find references to then hot topics such as Watergate and the then very hot topic of pollution.  Unlike other series Jack Kirby was working on at the time, Kamandi appeared to be Mr. Kirby taking a fictional look at the things that currently interested him.

And it is so much fun.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  While Kamandi may not be the very last work of Mr. Kirby, it was certainly his last sustained successful comic book work. I know he made several books and series afterwards, but none, in my opinion, were as entertaining as this one. If you’re a fan of Jack Kirby, you’d be crazy to ignore this incredible series.

I’m not sure when Volume 2, collecting the last 20 issues Mr. Kirby did, will be released, but I’ll most certainly be picking it up. While the series lost steam toward the end of Mr. Kirby’s run and the very best stories, in my opinion, are in this first volume (of those, my absolute favorites are found in issues #9 and 10), the second volume will certainly be a must buy for me.  Sadly, Mr. Kirby faced many obstacles when he chose to leave Marvel in the late 1960’s.  Much of his work was derided by fans and it wasn’t until toward the end of his life that fans began to once again appreciate what it was he brought to the comic book field.  I’m pleased that DC Comics has decided to reprint all his 1970’s works, including the various New Gods issues, Omac, The Demon, and Jimmy Olsen.

And while I can understand that the Kamandi reprints will end with Mr. Kirby’s last issue, I’m such a fan of the series that I wish they’d offer a third volume that features all the rest of the stories in the series. Regardless, Kamandi Volume 1 is well worth your time.

Movies

Drive (2011) a (very mildly belated) review

3 Comments

Last year, the movie Drive appeared to do well in building up pre-release buzz. Actor Ryan Gosling, the film’s star, likewise was looking to have a serious breakout year, what with not one, not two, but three big film releases, each in a different genre (the other two being the political drama The Ides of March and the romantic comedy Crazy, Stupid, Love).

Shortly before the release of Drive, the studios fed the first five or so minutes of this to the internet.  The sequence presented, although incomplete, was nonetheless fascinating and had my full attention.

When the film was finally released, the critics were, for the most part, positive in their reactions (Rottentomatoes.com has the movie earning an extremely positive 93% among film critics and a somewhat less, yet still good, 79% among audiences).  In those early days, there was talk of Oscar nominations, in particular for Albert Brooks’ turn as Bernie Rose, the movie’s villain.

Despite all these positives, the film didn’t perform all that well in theaters, although given the movie’s small budget I’m sure it turned a profit.  Mr. Brooks wasn’t nominated for his role (his twitter response regarding the non-nomination was quite humorous). Worse, the film suffered the indignity of being sued by a movie goer who claimed false advertisement, thinking from the film’s trailers that this would be an action adventure thriller along the lines of Fast Five versus the slow burn noir thriller she got.

And for those interested in the film, Drive is just that, a slow burn thriller that, while successful in creating tension, nonetheless left me wanting more.

To begin with the good: the opening sequence, which I mentioned above, is indeed fantastic when seen all the way through.  It is a triumph of low key tension build up, an almost wordless sequence that had me gnashing my teeth despite the fact that we have no standard “Hollywood” type car chase presented.

Alas, then came the rest of the movie.

I don’t want to sound too harsh, but once again a potentially terrific piece of work is sabotaged by, you guessed it, an inadequate screenplay.  The acting, for the most part, is very good.  The direction is very strong.  The scenery and cinematography is great.  The use of locales is wonderful.  The level of tension is strong.  But we get to the story and, despite all these great elements, we find there isn’t much there there.

Briefly, Driver (Ryan Gosling) is a no name anti-hero in the mold of Clint Eastwood’s “Man With No Name”.  There is no back story, there are no flashbacks.  We learn he drives stunts for the movies while working in a garage and, on the side, working as a getaway driver.  He befriends and falls in love with his next door neighbor, a woman who has a very young child and a husband in jail.  When the husband is released, Driver finds the man owes a debt to some shady characters who have no problem menacing both the husband and the child.  Driver agrees to help out the husband and be the wheel man for a pawn shop robbery.  But, when it goes bad, Driver quickly realizes there was more to the job than meets the eye.

The above description, alas, is more intriguing than what the film eventually presented.  Side stories involving Driver’s boss (Bryan Cranston) were very predictable.  Worse, the way that his boss, his boss’ investor, and his boss’ investor’s right hand man intermingle with the job Driver eventually takes were more complicated than they needed to be.

As with both Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and Hanna, I get the feeling that the script was being altered as the movie was being filmed.  How else to explain that at one point Driver puts on an elaborate disguise before taking out one of the bad guys, yet ultimately there was absolutely no reason for him to do so?  To me it looked like maybe the script’s original story was that Driver was keeping his identity from everyone.  But as shown in the film, the bad guys knew who he was almost from the very beginning, thus there was no reason for him to disguise himself.

Having said all that, the film wasn’t terrible.  It was certainly far better than many works I’ve seen recently.  It’s just that when it was all over my immediate reaction was: I will never see this film again, and that’s hardly a ringing endorsement.  Two stars out of four.

Music, TV

Middle finger malfunction…

While thIs year’s Super Bowl was an entertaining affair, once again we have a “controversy” regarding the halftime performance.  Specifically, it appears singer M.I.A., facing a camera during a medley of songs with Madonna, not only gave viewers the “middle finger”, but also said “I don’t give a s***”.

 

Maybe the advancing years have made me a cynic, but it’s getting hard to count the number of times I’ve heard of/witnessed a musician doing some “shocking” spontaneous act on a stage (large or small) that a) lands them into hot water while b) helping raise people’s awareness of said artist which results in c) more sales of their product.

Movies

Worst Superhero Movies ever…

2 Comments

…at least according to Entertainment Weekly:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20246950_20263257_20186843,00.html

I have to agree with many of the choices, from Ghost Rider to The Phantom (there are several people I know who think this film has been unfairly slighted over time.  I do not.  To me, this film is not unlike The Shadow and Judge Dredd and therefore share several commonalities:  Good actors, fairly big budget, a pretty good “look”, but a story that is so lethargic and uninvolving that you can’t help but shake your head at what a missed opportunity it is).

Swamp Thing, the original film, is also listed, but I would have replaced that movie and instead posted its far, far worst sequel, Return of Swamp Thing.  While the original film might not have been any great work, neither was it anywhere near as bad as the campy sequel.

And speaking of sequels: Supergirl and Superman IV.  My only question: What kept Superman III off this list?  All three of these later Superman films should be in the comic book movie hall of shame.  I recall when Superman IV came out I went to the theater the day after it was released, a Saturday, and finding the theater completely empty except for me. Clearly, everyone else in town had a better idea of how bad this would be…

Now, getting back to Judge Dredd.  EW.com places that movie at the top of the list of worst comic book films, and I don’t disagree that the film was a disappointment.

But…worst superhero movie ever?

No way.  It was a very mediocre film that made some very silly decisions regarding how to interpret the Judge Dredd comic strip…but it is nowhere near as bad as Superman IV.  The two hours or so I spent in that empty theater watching the crumbling remains of what was once the most promising superhero movie franchise go down in flames was one of the most excruciating movie experiences I have personally ever experienced.  The effects in Superman IV were amateurish (and that’s being kind), the acting was stilted (even Gene Hackman, who I thought was excellent -others may differ- as Lex Luthor in the first two Superman films, seemed embarrassed here), the main villain was laughable, and the plot alternatively very stupid and too earnest.

The movie was also very obviously cut down in length, and sequences were disjointed.  I bought the comic book adaptation of the movie a week or two before the movie’s release and there was plenty of stuff there that didn’t make it to the film.

Not that it would have helped!

Such a shame.

Originally posted June 2009

Comic Books/Graphic Novels, Movies

Batman Year One (2011) a (mildly belated) review

There was a time when I was incredibly eager to see what Frank Miller was up to.  While I by and large missed his original run on Daredevil (I did follow his return to the character a few years after that initial run), I was a Frank Miller fan the moment I read The Dark Knight Returns #1.  To me, this single issue remains one of my all time favorite comic books.

While the rest of that series (IMHO!) wasn’t quite as good as that first issue, I nonetheless was eager to follow whatever new works Mr. Miller had going.  In 1987, he wrote a four part story entitled Batman: Year One.  This story appeared in Batman #’s 404 through 407 and was  illustrated by the great David Mazzucchelli.  The story featured, natch, the “first” year of Batman’s career.  However, the story devoted equal -perhaps even more!- time to the arrival and acclimation of one Jim Gordon to the rough streets of Gotham City.

Mr. Miller added interesting, and some not so interesting touches, to the “early” Batman legend (one can argue, for example, whether it was wise to retro-con Selena Kyle/Catwoman’s origin to be a one time prostitute).  Overall, I felt the story was strong and presented a good primer on a gritty, almost noir “take” on the Dark Knight.

Now, many years later, DC Comics has released a film version of the four part comic book.  It was released directly to DVD and, a couple of nights ago, I finally had a chance to see it.

It’s difficult, however, to put my thoughts into words regarding what I’ve seen.  If what you want to see a very slavish copy of the mini-series done to film, then this feature is for you.  Mr. Miller’s original story is followed almost panel by panel and with no apparent deviations (there may be a couple of flourishes here and there, but they are minimal).  Likewise, the “look” of the comic book is also followed slavishly.  David Mazzucchelli’s artwork is essentially carbon copied.  Camera angles are replicated to the point where the only big difference in terms of art is that in the movie people are actually moving while in the comic book they are frozen in time.

So, again, if you want to see an almost reverential retelling of the story, this is for you.

However…

One can argue about how best one can take a story and translate it to the screen.  There are those who are irritated with liberties taken by a director or actor or screenwriter when doing a translation.  “The book was better” is one of those cliched refrains.  Others may pick apart certain aspects of a translation, noting that the author’s original intention was ignored.  Often, the connotation is negative.  Why didn’t they stick closer to the source material?

In this case, the people behind this animated movie did just that.  However, the degree to which they did so wound up, in my opinion, harming the work, though not fatally.  Let’s face it:  Comic books are not movies and vice versa.  What may work on a comic book page may not work when things are in motion.  I’m not saying that Batman Year One is a failure.  Far from it.  The work is solid and I would recommend it to those interested in either Frank Miller or David Mazzucchelli or Batman or any combination of the three.

It’s just that…I wish the film’s makers had realized that they were indeed making a movie instead of a moving carbon copy of a comic book.  They didn’t have to go with every angle and shadow that Mr. Mazzucchelli originally laid out.  They could have tried to add their own flourishes.  Mind you, what I’m suggesting is that there could have been a better balance…perhaps a little more.  By all means use Mr. Miller’s story and Mr. Mazzucchelli’s artwork as the template for the adaptation but see where things could be “punched up”.  My feeling is that the action sequences, in particular, could have worked better if the movie’s makers had decided to make a movie rather than a too perfect moving adaptation.

Still, I do recommend it, although with the above reservations.

General

Museum discovers earliest copy of Mona Lisa…

Surely the world’s most famous painting is the Mona Lisa.  Even if you have absolutely no interest in art at all you know of that painting, not just by name but by its subject.

In Madrid, the earliest copy of the Mona Lisa has been discovered, a piece most likely done by someone in Da Vinci’s studio concurrently with the production of his work and using the same model!

www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/world/europe/mona-lisa-copy-prado/index.html

I just hope it doesn’t turn out this is some elaborate hoax.  Otherwise, a terrific, intriguing story!

 

Comic Books/Graphic Novels

Watchmen 2…

…or should we say Watchmen -1?

According to Entertainment Weekly’s Jeff Jensen, a Watchmen prequel is in the works…

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2012/02/01/watchmen-prequels-exclusive-details/

Had I read about this a decade and a half or so ago, I would certainly have been more shocked.  Perhaps back then I may have even hoped that Watchmen series writer/co-creator, Alan Moore, might have a hand in this new series.  After all, and if memory serves, he was the one who originally thought this was a workable concept.

However, with the passage of time and further interviews with Mr. Moore, it is clear the rift between he and Watchmen publisher DC Comics is as wide as it is deep.

When Alan Moore’s first American work appeared in DC Comic’s Saga of the Swamp Thing, the book was well on its way toward cancellation.  In the store I frequented at the time, I might well have been the only person buying the book, and even I was about to give up on it when Mr. Moore showed up.

When his first issues appeared, I was stunned, shocked, delighted, amazed, and entranced.  Mr. Moore’s writing on this series, to put it bluntly, was amazing.  So much so that I had to look up his British works.  When I found out his works appeared in a magazine called Warrior, I hunted the issues down, discovering the incredible V for Vendetta and Marvelman (soon to be renamed Miracleman) and being doubly amazed by the man’s talents.  So too did others.  Swamp Thing not only wasn’t cancelled, it thrived.  While Warrior magazine was cancelled, DC Comics picked up and completed V for Vendetta while various companies picked up and completed Mr. Moore’s run of Marvel/Miracleman.

When I first heard about Watchmen, I eagerly anticipated it.  When it came out, I devoured each issue.  While the series mined the same general material as Marvelman, it was a great series…until its end.  One thing I came to realize was that as good a writer as Mr. Moore was, the conclusions to his tales, especially the longer running ones, were often anticlimactic.  In the case of Watchmen, unfortunately, the entire ending to the series wound up being a retread of and old episode of The Outer Limits entitled “Architects of Fear“.  I don’t know if this was intentional or unintentional on Mr. Moore’s part.  Regardless, toward the very end of the series, tellingly, we have a panel showing a television set.  An announcer notes that they’re about to play that episode of the series…obviously a nod by Mr. Moore to that particular show.

Regardless, I was still a big fan of the man’s works, and I was hoping to see more from Mr. Moore.  Especially his take on DC characters.

This was not to be.  The success of Watchmen, ironically, created a rift between Mr. Moore and DC Comics.  Though I don’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the situation, Mr. Moore broke away from the company and, in subsequent interviews, repeatedly expressed the cause of the rift a desire to gain control over Watchmen.  DC Comics apparently had a clause in the Watchmen contract that ensured they retained control of the property as long as they kept it in print.  If that’s the case, it is possible the Watchmen prequel may be an attempt to continue doing just that.

As the years passed and Mr. Moore moved on, I found myself less and less interested in his subsequent works.  I tried many of them, some which received considerable positive reviews, but they just didn’t appeal to me as much as his earlier stuff.

The line up of talent involved in the Watchmen prequel books is unquestionably impressive, but even if Mr. Moore himself were somehow involved in this new book, I don’t think I’d pick it up.  While I retain fond memories of the original series despite certain flaws, the book featured a completely self contained story.  Even when I originally read it, I didn’t think there was a need for more stories set in this universe, whether before, during, or after the events presented.

I still feel that way.

But I’m just one voice.  If nothing else, I’m curious to see how this series does with modern audiences.

Movies, Uncategorized

I watched every Steven Spielberg movie…

1 Comment

…and now Slate author Bill Wyman wishes he hadn’t:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_completist/2012/01/steven_spielberg_movies.single.html

While I found the article an interesting read and agreed with some of the points Mr. Wyman is making, I couldn’t help but also feel this is the type of career tear-down is also rather unfair.

Let’s face it, there is no more famous/well known director of motion pictures in this world than Steven Spielberg.  His reputation is very well earned because he has delivered some truly memorable, enjoyable, and terrific films.

And in Mr. Spielberg’s defense (as if he needs me to do that!), one simply cannot remain a viable creative force for 40+ years without a) coming out with clunkers now and again and/or b) repeating yourself.

Clunkers are to be expected.  Not everything you try winds up working as well as one hoped it would.  Sometimes, the “clunker” turns out to be a career-ender. Sometimes, the creative person simply hits a “rough patch” and may find their legs again…or sometimes the clunker is an early indication of the creative person’s descent.  Subsequent projects may be good but never quite achieve the level of previous works.  Is Mr. Spielberg in one of these three areas?  A few years back he hit a “rough patch” and pulled himself up with works like Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan.  Lately, it appears he was once again slipping, only to release two films this winter, War Horse and Tintin, which have garnered generally good reviews…if not box office hit status.

As for repeating oneself, that too can, and does, happen.  Ironically, we sometimes react negatively when an artist strays from their “comfort zone” and creates works that are too far removed from the works we are accustomed to them making.  Yet there are also times we may react negatively when an artist does repeat him/herself.  In the end, I’m not terribly bothered by the fact that Mr. Spielberg has used certain cinematic techniques/stories over and over again.

What I thought the author was dead right about was the fact that Mr. Spielberg does indeed have one clear difficulty, and that is in doing comedy.  Yes, there are humorous elements in many of his films, but often that humor is in the context of a film that is something else, whether it be horror, suspense, action, etc.  When his movie focus is entirely on comedy (1941, Always), he does appear to stumble.

Having said all that, to me there is no denying Mr. Spielberg has created a captivating body of work, warts and all.  The very first film I ever saw and understood as a 5 or 6 year old child was Duel when it originally premiered on TV.  It wasn’t until many years later that I realized Mr. Spielberg was the movie’s director.  If you watch Duel and his first mega-hit film, Jaws, back to back, you can see how the former was clearly an influence on the later.

Both films remain two of my all time favorites, along with a few others he’s had his hand in.  I don’t think I could sit through every Steven Spielberg movie…I have neither the time or the patience.  However, there are those I could see over and over again, and enjoy them each and every time.

General

Politically correct Disney

2 Comments

This post originally appeared in November of 2011.

When you have a company that primarily caters to younger audiences, it isn’t too terribly surprising the people behind the scenes make sure the material presented to these young people is in no way controversial.  There is added difficulty when your company also happens to have existed for many, many years, and what might have been acceptable at one time becomes unacceptable in another.

Of the many films produced by Walt Disney Studios, the one you cannot get your hands on is an official release of Song of the South.  This despite the fact that the film features one of the more recognizable Disney songs ever created (Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah) and has a ride (Splash Mountain) based on the animated segments in the film.  It is the non-animated segments, however, that are -to put it mildly- a source of controversy given the depiction of African Americans in post-Civil War times.  But the movie isn’t a unique example of Disney studios going back and changing things that may be, in these modern times, deemed at best “touchy” and at worst “offensive”.

I’ve been going to Walt Disney World near Orlando for years, and it is curious to note the subtle and not so subtle changes to some of their rides.  The 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage ride has been completely done away with.  Two others have featured some notable changes.

The first is the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.  With the success of the movie franchise, audiences have witnessed the appearance of an animatronic version of Capt. Jack Sparrow.  His presence isn’t all that bad, but it does change the focus of the ride from one of amorphous idealized pirates to a focus more in line with the movies.  What I found most intriguing was the way they changed one of the ride’s more elaborate jokes.  After we pass the “women’s” market (where a pirate group is selling women off to leering pirates, the joke being that the current woman on sale, a fat one, is of no interest in the buyers.  They have their eyes on the next woman in line, who is a knockout.  The way things are going, I suspect this particular joke won’t remain in the ride much longer!), we come upon a besieged town.  Originally the joke presented here was that we see one pirate chasing a woman around her house.  Then another doing the same.  When we get to the third house, however, the woman is far larger than the pirate and, instead of him chasing her, she’s chasing him around the house, swinging her broom at his head!

This joke was completely killed off for obvious reasons.  After all, what are the pirates doing chasing the women?  Because they are hungry and want the women to make them some breakfast or lunch?  Are they cold and want the women to fetch them a warm drink?

Clearly, this is not the case.  In fact, the “joke” presented here is that these women are in the process of being assaulted.  Once the pirates “catch” them, what follows can only be one thing.  The people behind the scenes at Disney, I’m quite certain, decided this “joke” was a little too risqué and nixed it.  Now, the first house has a pair of pirates running around in circles while carrying a (no doubt pilfered) treasure chest.  The second house has (I believe) a woman chasing away a pirate, and the third has the same big woman chasing a pirate.  The joke is officially expunged.

This last time I went to Walt Disney World, I noted another change.  If you go to the Haunted Mansion ride, in the preamble, you’re “locked” in a room with your fellow park attendees and listen as the narrator talks about the mansion.  The walls seem to move, and the lower parts of painted pictures reveal humorous “hidden” bottoms containing macabre jokes.  Toward the end of this segment, the narrator notes that the audience is trapped in a room with no doors or windows.  How, he wonders, are we to find a way out?  Our narrator then states that in a room without doors or windows, there is only one way out.  Then, you hear a scream and lightning reveals a hidden attic above us, showing…not much.

At least now.

Yes, there’s the sound of crashing and you see a ragged figure above you, but the whole conclusion to the narration makes little sense.  Why?  Because the original “way out” was clipped.  For the original “way out” was…suicide.

When the narrator says there is a way out, originally when you heard the screams and the lightning flashes illuminated the room above you, the ragged figure you saw was clearly hanging from her neck on a rope.  The implication was that in a room with no exit, the only exit is to kill yourself.  Not the most ideal of “jokes” to present little kids!  Now, the ragged figure does not sway on any rope, but is immobile, making the ending of this part of the ride rather confusing (although, granted, far more politically correct than showing the ragged remains of some poor forgotten soul who has committed suicide!).

Anyway, if you’re interested in more changes (some dealing with far less controversial material within the parks), I found this pretty interesting website that details some of those people have noted:

http://www.wdwradio.com/forums/i-remember-lost-attractions-wdw-more/18772-attraction-changes-over-years.html

The Blog of E. R. Torre