Skip to main content

Do I Actually Hate the Disney Remakes: A User's Guide

 

Despite the internet's passion for griping over the state of the union, including and especially Hollywood's passion for remakes and reboots, the process of retelling and readaptation within art has been around for a while. Some of the earliest, most beloved films were themselves adaptations of famous texts of their day (The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, etc.) Sometimes if the beloved text is beloved enough, we can see multiple film versions of the same stories throughout time. Adaptation is nothing new to film.

   Yet the process hits a nerve in the context of the 21st-century pop culture scape, what with the constant refrain of "when did Hollywood run out of ideas??????" This most contentious of all dialogues is clearer nowhere than with the warzone of Disney live-action remakes.

         It’s likely because of the sheer wealth of remakes on board that we use apocalyptic rhetoric to condemn them—they are plagues, they are soulless, they are morally bankrupt—habitually and without much curiosity. I can’t think of another property or series (hm ... maybe the Jurassic World movies) so reviled for the unpardonable offense of existing. The internet has been “so over” these films for a good five years now. And yet they reliably rank among the highest-grossing movies of each year.

        The Disney remakes strike a unique chord with me. The worst of them expose everything about Disney's pop culture dominance that's so upsetting, yet I’ve unironically enjoyed a good two or three remakes, a better ratio than the equally cash-grabby Pixar sequels which never endure the same degree of audience pushback. I’m very much a proponent of supporting new content, but I just look at various online voices tearing down The Lady and the Tramp remake and feel more worn down than I do watching any of the remakes themselves.

    I have seen a few dozen video responses to this phenomenon, and I still hundreds more lie in wait in the YouTube algorithm. If I had to distill the message of all these videos into one argument, it would sound something like, "Disney is a capitalist monster that just wants to prey on the nostalgic achings of the millennial audience by pushing out the most commercially safe product, forsaking all creative or moral merit in the name of pounding that bottom line." And this is not some niche insight that has yet to reach the mainstream consumer base. People "know" these things, and in my experience, nobody knows them better than the people who continue to reliably see these films opening weekend so they can gripe about them online, and that's the phenomenon I really want to talk about here today.
    


  I'm not really here to defend Disney squandering its creative potential on nothing but the safest of bets, but the dialogue around these remakes is vulnerable to some very specific fallacies, ones that would have the movie-going public throwaway its own voice within the ecosystem in which these remakes arise in the first place. Nothing is so messy that unchecked rhetoric won't make it worse. 

           There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the Disney remakes, but if we really want to understand where these remakes are coming from, and what to do about them, we’re better served looking less at the CEOs high on Olympus and more at ourselves. Because at the end of the day, it isn’t that Disney is running out of ideas, it isn’t that Disney is out to mess with “the classics,” it isn’t that Disney is forcing these remakes down our throat. We scorn the Disney remakes so ruthlessly because they are precisely what we as a media consuming society have been asking for.

 

         Talking Point 1: “I Just Want to See Disney Try O R I G I N A L Stories”

         The ground of originality and creativity is usually the first base hit when bagging on the Disney remakes: they are bad because Disney should be delivering creative new stories, not just retelling old ones.

    There's a lot about this that I agree with. Plow through the 90s for their biggest hits and you find films like Jurassic Park and Titanic. Plow the 2010s for their most important contributions to cinema, and you find films from the 90s. There's something embarrassing and even unnerving about how dependent we are on pre-existing content within entertainment, something I cover thoroughly in my rant on Toy Story 4.


    Just so, the internet sometimes forgets that “originality” and “creativity” are funny things and aren’t necessarily confined to one end of the IP spectrum. I have long wondered how many Spiderman franchises one century can take, yet I loved "Into the Spiderverse" as much as the next guy. Remixing is its own kind of artform, and there are all kinds of ways to do it right.

    The common line surrounding these remakes is "we've already seen this story before." This is partially true and very dependent on which remake we're talking about. For every "Lion King," which hits the notes of its animated predecessor beat-for-beat, there is a "Jungle Book," which borrows some of the story points of the original movie but builds its own narrative from it, even diverging wildly from its preordained ending.

    Even small changes can make for entirely unique experiences. I’ve seen Beauty and the Beast on stage a good half-dozen times and counting. Some might consider that superfluous or repetitive, “It’s just the same story over and over again,” but I don’t. Yes, it’s always the same song of a tortured beast falling for a bright young woman (not that one) and becoming a better person for it, but each production sings that song in a slightly different way, emphasizing different notes. Some Beasts really lean into the Phantom of the Opera-like tragedy of the character, other times they play him like an overgrown puppy. The unique inflections in acting, design, and directing all add up, and through each imagining I discover some new angle of the story.

    I think these nuanced story flecks are an essential part of the equation in part because there is a large swath of film critics who would reduce the success of the Disney library to a set list of factors--to feeding into a very specific algorithm that Sir Walt himself hacked decades ago. Considering these stories for the fine texture of their narrative reveals the fine mechanics of the stories, and exploring how this story balances out in the minutiae reinforces something Disney fans have always known: the magic of these films isn't accidental--the storytelling works, down to the detail.

When the foundational story is good, and the production is committed to excellence, the experience is rewarding such that it doesn’t matter that I’ve seen the show over and over. Really, it doesn’t matter that I’ve seen the animated film over and over. The question posed by the remakes is whether the same can be said for restaging the story on film.

    Let's use the Cinderella remake as an example.
In and out of the Disney canon, Cinderella is a symbol for transcending trials and holding on to your goodness even as others try to snuff it out of you. The live-action film supplements this by letting us see firsthand Cinderella’s deterioration from an innocent child unspotted from grief or distress into a young woman who suddenly finds herself in the thick of hardship.

    In the animated film, this is all mostly conveyed through storybook exposition. In the remake, we actually see Ella's support systems being stripped from her over and over onscreen all while she tries to hold onto her light. You sit with her as you watch her learn that her father is dead, and you watch her stepmother strip away her dignity bit by bit, which makes her evergreen compassion and faith all the more bright. It's the kind of thing that really reminds us why we even remake Cinderella to begin with.

    
There’s also something to letting new talent drive the old engine. The narrative around Will Smith’s take on the Genie (at least before that one trailer) centered mostly on how Smith could ever hope to step into the shoes of the legendary Robin Williams. Smith’s answer seemed to be that he just wasn’t going to. He was going to do his own thing. Where Genie ‘92 is like everyone’s favorite drama teacher, Genie ‘19 is basically Hitch with all the powers of the cosmos.
And turns out this was the best approach he could have taken.

    Whether or not this new take resonates with each viewer is its own conversation. Just because something’s different, that doesn’t mean that it’s de facto good--I haven’t liked every stage show I’ve seen of Beauty and the Beast--but it does mean it deserves a fair chance.

    The concept of "original stories" also sits weirdly with me when I consider the studios' unique relationship to pre-existing material. Most films within the Disney animated canon, especially those receiving the remake treatment today, are not truly "original stories" themselves. The Disney tradition, and I mean the animated classics, gets a lot of blowback from certain pools of scholars and intellectuals for its practice of grafting pre-existing stories (Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book stories, Grimm's Sleeping Beauty, etc) into its own bank of merchandisable material, inevitably supplanting the original story's place in pop culture. (When you buy your nephew a Winnie the Pooh book, are you buying the Disney version or one of the A.A. Milne books?)

There's a lot of legitimate concern to be had here, but since I've already dedicated my Beauty and the Beast essay to this very topic, let it suffice to say here that complaining about Disney killing original stories with their remakes--while not acknowledging that the "original movies" are themselves stamping on the graves of older stories--is kind of turning a blind eye. (There's a cheat, though: every time you read Hans Christian Andersen's Little Mermaid, the universe permits you three angry YouTube comments about Belle's prom dress in the remake.)


         Talking Point 2: “Leave the Classics Alone”

Waking Life (2001)
         Perhaps you’re familiar with the stigma connected to animated films. Even in a landscape with such a rich offering of animated films, a sizable segment of the movie-going public takes it as a given that animated movies are just for kids.
This is doubly true for the sentimental smorgasbord of Disney animated pics.

    So when the Walt Disney company pays top dollar to translate their entire line-up into the more acceptable adult medium of live-action, it’s not entirely unreasonable that tried and true Disney fans would be upset. It doesn’t help that these remakes are billed as apologies for the animated films that birthed them.

    The Jungle Book remake is Disney’s apology for "dumbing down" Rudyard Kipling’s precious writings. Maleficent is Disney’s apology for every Disney Princess trope. Beauty and the Beast is Disney’s apology to that guy commenting on Buzzfeed about “how come there’s just a giant castle in the middle of the woods that nobody knows about?”

    These talking points reliably become the backbone of promotion for any given remake. The Beauty and the Beast campaign was basically Emma Watson spouting gratitude over getting to play "the only good Disney Princess." Eventually it starts to feel like these remakes are designed especially for people who don’t like Disney animation, which inevitably creates a lot of resentment toward these remakes. But it is possible for the reactions to these PR runs to become distortions of their own.

    As a case study, let’s view the narrative around Jasmine in the 2019 remake of Aladdin.

Princess Jasmine of the 1992 animated film is a somewhat polarizing figure within feminist discourse. Just as many people champion her as a girl power icon as write her off as a trophy for the male protagonist. Some praise her subversive and rebellious actions within the film while others see her as just another damsel in distress.

   Jasmine in the 2019 remake is just as divisive within the Disney fandom. The remake went to great effort to appease critics of Jasmine in the animated film, most notably by adding a new song for her, a power ballad ironically titled "Speechless." Most within the Disney community fall into one of two camps: those who love that their favorite princess has an awesome new jam, and those who see her as yet another reminder of Disney's addiction to pandering. Pushback against something like newandimproved Jasmine rises in tandem with the usual round of ill-informed narratives about the original film. That was certainly the case with Aladdin 2019.

    Leading the charge was none other than producer of the remake Dan Lin, who in multiple interviews gave the most aggravating summation of Jasmine’s character in the animated film. Said Lin to the LA Times, “Jasmine’s main goal in the original movie is really to find a spouse, and in this movie there’s much more than that.” He made similar remarks in his interview with Empire Online where he kindly let us know “In the original movie, it felt like [Jasmine] didn’t have as compelling a goal. Her main aim was to find the love of her life."


     This is, of course, in direct contradiction with the animated film. Jasmine of Aladdin '92, where she actively rejects and sabotages her father's attempts to match her with the first rich guy to walk through the door. Don’t get me wrong, there are grey areas within Jasmine’s character, but claiming that Jasmine “just wants to get married” is inventing controversy. And when invented controversy started making headlines, a lot of Disney fans were rightfully upset.

         This is what outsiders misunderstand about us Disney loyalists getting riled up over hot takes about Disney’s damsels in distress or whatnot. It’s not that we don’t like seeing strong, multi-dimensional females in our films. It's not that we can't accept criticism. It’s that we’re tired of being patronized by people like Dan Lin who insist that they know better than us when they haven’t seen the darn movie since our solar system lost a planet. 

         But even Lin’s ignorant comments, ignorant as they are, can’t bear all the weight of this rewriting. If they do, then what do we make of people like Benj Pasek, the lyricist for the new music in the film including “Speechless." In “The Art of Aladdin” book, Pasek says Jasmine’s new power anthem was “a natural extension” of the character.

“I think people gravitate to Jasmine because she is such a strong female character, and we were inspired by that and aimed to give her a song, and a moment, that matched her power."

    Meanwhile, the actress portraying Jasmine in the remake, Naomi Scott, describes the process of blending '92 Jasmine with '19 Jasmine as a simple process of accessing her humanity.

“Jasmine was my favorite, so I can’t really reconcile those two things. You have to have a healthy respect for what came before, but I still see those things as separate. It’s more a case of being able to create this human version of her. That’s the way I saw it.”

       There are a lot of cooks in this kitchen. A lot of ideologies go into something like remaking a Disney princess for a new decade. Disney princesses have always occupied a rather precarious place in pop culture discourse (and yes I promise I will write that essay one day) so there's just no pleasing everybody. But when I see pushback from Disney fans over the remakes disrespecting the animated films, I frequently see them citing comments like Lin's. I seldom see them bring up Pasek's, and that represents a blindspot.

    Inherently baked into the process of remaking the Disney films is the notion that the animated films are not perfect. Confronting this reality can be frustrating, especially when the loudest voices in this discussion don't have any curiosity for the films they are critiquing. But I don't think efforts to update the Disney canon always come from a place of disdain for the animated films. (On that note, I also don't think that appreciating progressive action in the remakes automatically means turning your back on the original films.) It's just as likely that the filmmakers are trying to figure out how to better tell the story to reflect today's understanding of multiculturalism. Yes, it's disappointing when the figureheads of these conversations choose not to be graceful in their phrasing, but Disney fans can choose to look past the theatrics of this arena and create dialogue that celebrates the opportunities these remakes have helping to champion marginalized communities. 

    Critical engagement of any sort opens the gates for a lot of lazy jabs at the classics, and yeah some people really need to do their research, but it also opens the gates for a lot of good. For one thing, minorities are being allowed to see themselves in historically white icons like Ariel and Tinker Bell, both being portrayed by black actresses in their upcoming remakes. Much like how it's frustrating when X-celebrity fundamentally misrepresents X-Disney film, it isn't exactly fair to be equally reductive when talking about the remakes.

     We've talked thus far how there are a lot of legitimate reactions to the remakes, and I stand by that. Provided their logic is sound, it's perfectly reasonable for a large slice of Disney fandom to dislike the remakes and what they stand for, but there's a caveat. The breadth of reasons we list for why the remakes are terrible (they're just the same story again, they're disrespectful to the classics, etc.) all betray an uncomfortable truth: the Disney remakes didn't just come from nowhere. This is our mess too.


         Talking Point 3: “Literally No One is Asking for These”

         This is probably the most frequent response I see to these films, but when I notice that four of these remakes grossed over a billion dollars worldwide, I can’t help but think somebody is asking for these.

Let's take a look at where Disney was back when the remakes business all started.

    Flashback to the early 2010s. Back when Disney's little experiment with Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was making so much money that even Disney was like "Holy crap, that actually worked?" and wondering what they were going to do next. I was on IMDb during this time, and one of the most popular themes in users lists was this idea of recasting characters from Disney animation contemporary actors. (Any list that didn't have Emma Watson as Belle had Anne Hathaway.) This was all back when the notion of these remakes was purely hypothetical. You also saw things like the Disney Dream photograph series by Anne Leibovitz, a promotional campaign for the Disney Parks, featured real-life celebrities posing in costume as Disney characters. Jennifer Hudson as Tiana and the like. Maybe the idea of dressing up favorite celebrities for live-action restagings of the animated films didn't come from the executives.

         I also want to key in on an underdiscussed branch of the Disney company in this conversation, the theme parks. During this time, the theme park division was busy cleaning up after the mismanagement of the late ‘90s and early ‘00s, notably public embarrassments like Disneyland Paris and the Disney California Adventure Park. The latter especially was a dartboard for online jokes about how far from grace the Disney theme parks had fallen. The question became how to get the public to see the park as being worthy of the Disney brand.

    The answer? Throw Disney properties onto the park.

         By 2012, Disney California Adventure introduced new rides for Toy Story and The Little Mermaid and an entire segment of the park themed to Cars. This campaign was indisputably successful, and the park is regarded much more favorably than it was in its opening days. Those of us who follow the parks closely might say that the shift had as much to do with the parks simply spending more effort on their projects as much as it did with featuring more movies, but the result is hard to dispute. A lesson was learned, or at least ratified, from this experiment: if you build a ferris wheel with Mickey Mouse’s face plastered on it, they will come.

    Seeing how this was applied to Disney California Adventure, this approach doesn’t seem so insidious. Fans got a lot of good stuff from this campaign. Playing with the Disney catalog can be really fun when it’s done with an eye for craftsmanship. But Disney would soon find out that the brand could also function as a lifejacket even when the product isn’t good.

    Immediately preceding this wave of remakes was the hit series on ABC “Once Upon a Time.” First airing in 2011, this show featured fairy-tale characters from a fairy-tale world who are magically transported into the real world. (Think Disney’s own Enchanted but as a soap opera.) I mention this show because, being an extension of Disney, ABC had access to the full Disney library of characters. But interestingly the early run of the show didn’t lean into flashing Disney’s IP catalog.

Initially the show’s cast drew from the full library of fairy-tale characters—Snow White and Pinocchio, yes, but also Red Riding Hood, Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel and Gretel, etc.—and when Disney characters did feature, even prominently, the show wouldn’t necessarily rub the Disney connection in too hard. We’d maybe hear Snow White humming one of the songs from the animated film, but these were easter eggs, not the backbone of the show. But the show’s business model shifted partway through.

For reference, this is back when the show made sense ...
        It’s widely agreed that the first season featured the show’s most cohesive writing, and things fell apart very shortly after. Show-writers Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz (of Lost fame) are somewhat infamous for chasing a fantastical situation long after it stops making any logical sense, and that was certainly the case in Once Upon a Time which leaned on plot twists like making Peter Pan not only an evil mastermind bent on world domination but also Rumpelstilksen's long-lost father.

    But despite this critical drop-off, the show ran for seven seasons. Why? Because the show figured out the audience wasn’t here for the writing—they were here for the Desperate Disney Housewives. And so when the writers realized the storyline was so convoluted even they couldn’t keep up with it, they just filled in the blanks with more cameos from Disney characters.

         This strategy really took over in the third and fourth season. That’s when we started seeing seasonal arcs based on Frozen or Aladdin with the characters basically wearing their theme park costumes. Even characters with no roots in traditional fairy-tales like Lumiere or Merida started popping up.

         I’m sure the show has its genuine fans, but most people I know who watched the show all the way through admit that they were bored or irritated with the show’s incoherent storytelling, but they stuck around because next season had Snow White’s daughter and Captain Hook teaming up with Robin Hood to take on the trifecta of Ursula, Maleficent, and Cruella DeVill. (I watched this show a lot longer than I should have, so, yeah, this is my sin too.) I’ll repeat: much of the audience thought the show was crap, but they gave it their time and attention because it had Disney. Fast forward five years and suddenly the internet is overflowing with hot takes about “why are they even making these remakes?”

    This trend is consistent across all branches of the Disney tree. In 2015, Disney Channel premiered the movie Descendants featuring the children of Disney Villains going to boarding school with children of Disney heroes. In terms of quality, the show is indistinguishable from your standard Disney Channel show, but the brand signaling was a lightning-rod. The movie was an overwhelming success, scoring the goalpost of 5th most-watched original movie in cable history. What’s interesting is that only 3 M of the show’s 6.6 M viewers opening weekend were a part of the channel’s 11 and under demographic. And I'm not here to shame you if you were part of that crowd, but I am here to tell everyone to view consumer behaviors in context.

        This also ties back to the audience's attitudes toward Disney and "original stories." A remake of The Jungle Book will earn 100 M opening weekend where a film like The Finest Hours, released only two months before The Jungle Book, will earn only half of that during its full term at the box office.

    We say we want Disney to try new things, we broadcast we’re all “over Disney and their remakes,” and we lampoon Disney for “running out of ideas,” but that tiptoes around a deeper truth. By casting ourselves as passive victims of this phenomenon, we give ourselves permission to indulge in the splurge without feeling guilty about perpetuating it. But unfortunately, when someone drops $30 to watch Mulan 3 months early, Disney doesn't take into account who bought it because they genuinely wanted to see the film and who bought it "just to laugh at how bad it is."

A fourth talking point I could bring up might be the argument that "no one is going to remember these movies anyways." I most often see this peddled out as an assurance that because these films are so rapidly produced and then forgotten, their impact on Disney and pop culture at large will be microscopic, so who cares that they're making bank? I have some hesitation over this line of thinking as well. The pop culture conversation leaves plenty of room for films that are sobadthey'regood. I cite the weird renaissance the Star Wars prequels have enjoyed over the last five years or so.

    And whether this all blows over five years from now or even sooner, that doesn't mean there won't be casualties. Think of how Disney's own direct to video sequels not only soured the reputation of Disney animation as a whole, but also helped kill hand-drawn animation in the U.S. These remakes are considerably more expensive than the direct to video sequels and land with much more of a splash. Who knows what their collateral might be?

As this process continues to draw viewership, the remakes march forth unfettered. Cruella DeVil’s origin story comes to theaters and Disney+ next month. Currently filming or slated to begin filming soon are remakes for The Little Mermaid, Peter Pan, and Pinocchio, with others like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Lilo and Stitch, and Hercules in various stages of pre-production.


    But surely there are only so many movies they can remake, right? We’ll stop after they get around to The Great Mouse Detective and Brother Bear, right? Not if the sequels to Aladdin, The Jungle Book, and The Lion King have a say in the matter. This pattern will continue for as long as audiences continue to fund it. And given that audiences don’t need to even like the product to endorse it, we’ll be hearing rants about how Disney needs to stop these remakes for a long, long time.

 

So What Will it Take to Stop the Remakes?

    Dismantling this age of IP Wars is difficult to imagine because the Disney remakes are just one tentacle on the Kraken of brand dominance. Both Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones are receiving spin-off television shows coming to a streaming service near you. Nickelodeon recently announced the development of Avatar Studios to continue mapping out the universe of the 2005 animated series, separate from the live-action series also coming to Netflix. Meanwhile it’s only a matter of time before the rumors of the "Harry Potter" series for HBO Max come to fruition, even as the Fantastic Beasts films continue plowing headfirst into controversy after controversy. Even The Rugrats are making a comeback.

It’s no longer a novelty to report that projects like these are taking the place of new stories, new classics born and made in the 21st century, but that’s as far as the discussion ever goes. A lot of us, myself included, have followed this train a lot longer than we should have, and we've seen what that mentality sows.

Stella Meghie's The Photograph, the exact kind of movie that stands to lose in today's climate
    I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who a few years into college took stock of all the movies he'd seen in theaters the previous five years, felt somewhat embarrassed at just how few "original movies" sat in between all the remakes and sequels, and vowed to be more curious in my film viewing. To think twice about watching a movie I know I'm going to hate just because everyone else is going to. To drive to the next town over where they're screening that new indie film that, who knows?, might end up being really great.

    I'm not saying that I'll never watch another Disney remake in theaters again, I'll just only watch the ones that catch my attention. By now I've figured what interests I do and don't have in this system. Besides, more useful than groaning over remakes, boycotting remakes, or even ignoring remakes is actively supporting films unbuoyed by a pre-existing brand.

This is admittedly becoming an increasingly more difficult task in a landscape where there are just fewer and fewer non-franchise properties being produced, especially for theatrical release. Check Disney's upcoming release calendar, and you'll notice a very clear pattern as to which movies are being reserved for theatrical distribution and which are being shipped directly to streaming.

Just so, it's very unlikely that it will become easier to scout out viable candidates. So if original content is the thing we want, we'd best get to work.

--The Professor



Comments

  1. While not your primary point, I think this comment (by you) is such a valid point: "Even small changes can make for entirely unique experiences. I’ve seen Beauty and the Beast on stage a good half-dozen times and counting. Some might consider that superfluous or repetitive, 'It’s just the same story over and over again,' but I don’t. Yes, it’s always the same song of a tortured beast falling for a bright young woman (not that one) and becoming a better person for it, but each production sings that song in a slightly different way, emphasizing different notes. Some Beasts really lean into the Phantom of the Opera-like tragedy of the character, other times they play him like an overgrown puppy. The unique inflections in acting, design, and directing all add up, and through each imagining I discover some new angle of a story I know intimately. When the foundational story is good, and the production is committed to excellence, the experience is rewarding such that it doesn’t matter that I’ve seen the show over and over." I felt this way, for example, when I saw the remake of "Miracle on 34th Street." As a lover of the original, the remake rubbed me wrong in so many ways. However, after watching it repeatedly, I began to see so many things that were new; things that I began to appreciate and even prefer. I've found the same to be true of remakes of popular songs. The same play/movie/song can have so many takes and so many director/actor/singer interpretations that they can open up vistas into the story that would otherwise be missed or never discovered. There is some true beauty in the "remake" in adding new layers to the familiar, causing one to look differently, see more, and fall in love all over again. I have remakes I simply choose to not see. Others I watch, but in the hopes it won't be a disappointment. Nonetheless, remakes can be like Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini"--overwhelmingly beautiful, and better than the original "theme." One must simply decide if he or she is willing to take that chance. Thanks Professor!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REVIEW: The Wild Robot

     I think I must have known that Chris Sanders had another movie on deck, but I guess I had forgotten it was coming out so soon. For whatever reason, when I saw his name at the end of the credits for The Wild Robot , out this weekend, I was caught off guard ... and then realized that it actually explained a lot. The basic premise felt broadly reminiscent of Lilo & Stitch , and there was at least one sequence that definitely recalled How to Train Your Dragon , both of which Sanders co-directed with Dean Deblois (executive producer on this film). With his latest offering for Dreamworks, Sanders cements his position as a titan in the world of animation.     The movie sees ROZ, a shipwrecked robot stranded on an island completely untouched by humans. One would think that such an Eden would be bereft of the squabbles that humans seem so happy to create, but the animals of the island revile this new intruder and put up every fence they have. The only thing on this rock that doesn'

REVIEW: Scream

     Stop me if you've heard this before about slasher films, in or out of the Scream franchise:       "Don't overthink it. It's just a scary movie."       What an insulting thought for anyone who's ever found themselves in the throes of a gripping horror film. Good slasher films, like the original Scream , look honestly at the thing that scares us most and gives it a face. They know that the point of the slasher isn't in the chasing or the stabbing, but the unmasking. The overcoming of the thing that scares you. Good slasher films "overthink" it.     I'm grateful to report that the directors of the newest Scream film,  Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, not only understand this principle, they embrace it wholly. In doing so, they may have created a sequel that not only meets but surpasses the film it tries to emulate.     Twenty-five years after Sidney Prescott's first encounter with Ghostface, we meet Sam Carpenter, a native of

Children of a Lesser God: Between Sound and Silence

Loyal readers may remember last month when I talked about Sidney Poitier and Elizabeth Hartman in A Patch of Blue and how I casually alluded to the larger framework of disability within film and promised to talk about it one day. Well, this isn’t like with my Disney Princess series where I teased the project for years before finally getting to it. I’m making good on that promise here today. You’re welcome.  Now, when I say “disability within film,” that’s a really large slice of the pie. The discussion of disability in Hollywood is a vast and complex field of study. There’s obviously overlap across the broader discussion, but people of different disabilities experience ableism differently, similar to how members of different ethnic identities experience racism differently, and it’s a machine that has to be dismantled on multiple fronts.  But with this piece, I’m not so interested in airing all the ways the industry has let down members of these communities. Today, I’d mostly li

Are We in Another Golden Age of Musicals?

  In early 2017, Variety ran a piece titled “ Will Musicals See a ‘La La Land’ Boost ?” alongside said movie’s victory lap around the box office and critics at large. Justin Paul, who wrote the music for La La Land alongside his partner, Benj Pasek, was optimistic about the doors his movie was opening: “I have to believe that other studios, other producers, would only be encouraged by the impact of ‘La La Land,’ both critically and at the box office.” Their agent, Richard Kraft, shared a similar sentiment. “I think people are growing tired of snark and skepticism and pessimism. [La La Land] hit the zeitgeist for smart and unapologetic optimism. Even in times of strife and conflict, people still fall in love and follow dreams.”  These are the kinds of statements that don’t go unnoticed by a musical nerd who chose to write his semesterly report on Meet Me in St. Louis when all his fellow film students wrote on Woody Allen. Classical musicals had always just been that gateway into c

American Beauty is Bad for your Soul

  The 1990s was a relatively stable period of time in American history. We weren’t scared of the communists or the nuclear bomb, and social unrest for the most part took the decade off. The white-picket fence ideal was as accessible as it had ever been for most Americans. Domesticity was commonplace, mundane even, and we had time to think about things like the superficiality of modern living. It's in an environment like this that a movie like Sam Mendes' 1999 film American Beauty can not only be made but also find overwhelming success. In 1999 this film was praised for its bold and honest insight into American suburban life. The Detroit News Film Critic called this film “a rare and felicitous movie that brings together a writer, director and company perfectly matched in intelligence and sense of purpose” and Variety hailed it as “a real American original.” The film premiered to only a select number of screens, but upon its smashing success was upgraded to

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Do Clementine and Joel Stay Together or Not?

                    Maybe. The answer is maybe.             Not wanting to be that guy who teases a definitive answer to a difficult question and forces you to read a ten-page essay only to cop-out with a non-committal excuse of an answer, I’m telling you up and front the answer is maybe. Though nations have long warred over this matter of great importance, the film itself does not answer once and for all whether or not Joel Barrish and Clementine Krychinzki find lasting happiness together at conclusion of the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Min d. I cannot give a definitive answer as to whether Joel and Clementine’s love will last until the stars turn cold or just through the weekend. This essay cannot do that.             What this essay can do is explore the in-text evidence the film gives for either side to help you, the reader, understand the mechanics, merits, and blindspots of either interpretation of the ending. It can also reveal the underlying assumptions of either

REVIEW: A Quiet Place - DAY ONE

I remember back when I reviewed A Quiet Place Part II , the thing that was on my mind a world crawling out of a global pandemic.  I now dive into Michael Sarnoski's newest take on the mythology with A Quiet Place: Day One having just this morning heard the news that a certain convicted felon is being granted immunity for his involvement in trying to overthrow democracy, and I am left wondering (not for the first time) what surviving in a world that already balances on borrowed time even means. This is more or less the mindset of the film's protagonist, Sam, a terminally ill cancer patient who was already done with existing well before killer aliens started dropping out from the sky. The only things she cares about in the world are her "emotional support" cat, Frodo, and getting a taste of some proper New York pizza before this cancer takes her, alien invasion or not! While the rest of the city is running off to catch the last boat off Manhattan, she just digs deeper

REVIEW: Cyrano

    The modern push for the movie musical tends to favor a modern sound--songs with undertones of rap or rock. It must have taken director Joe Wright a special kind of tenacity, then, to throw his heart and soul into a musical project (itself a bold undertaking) that surrenders to pure classicalism with his new film Cyrano . Whatever his thought process, it's hard to argue with the results. With its heavenly design, vulnerable performances, and gorgeous musical numbers, the last musical offering of 2021 (or perhaps the first of 2022) is endlessly enchanting.     Cyrano de Bergerac's small stature makes him easy prey for the scorn and ridicule of the high-class Victorian society, but there has yet to be a foe that he could not disarm with his sharp mind and even sharper tongue. The person who could ever truly reject him is Roxanne, his childhood friend for whom he harbors love of the most romantic variety. Too afraid to court Roxanne himself, he chooses to use the handsome but t

Part of That World: Understanding Racebent Ariel

          I’ve said before that the public discourse around the current parade of live-action Disney remakes has been very contentious. Trying to have a civil conversation about the potential creative merits is something of an uphill battle. In most cases, this is just the general opposition to Hollywood’s penchant for repackaged material, but the mess does spill into other conversations.              Take the casting announcement of Halle Bailey in the role of the upcoming remake of The Little Mermaid . When Disney announced on July 3, 2019 that the highly coveted role of Ariel would go to an African-American actress, you saw a lot of excitement from crowds championing fair representation. You also saw a lot of outrage, most clear in the trending hashtag #NotMyAriel.              I hear a lot of people shouting that “Ariel has been white for two-hundred years. Why change that all the sudden?” But the fact is she hasn’t even “been Ariel” for that long. “Ariel” is the name the merma

Silver Linings Playbook: What are Happy Endings For Anyway?

            Legendary film critic Roger Ebert gave the following words in July of 2005 at the dedication of his plaque outside the Chicago Theatre: Nights of Cabiria (1957) “For me, movies are like a machine that generates empathy. If it’s a great movie, it lets you understand a little bit more about what it’s like to be a different gender, a different race, a different age, a different economic class, a different nationality, a different profession, different hopes, aspirations, dreams and fears. It helps us to identify with the people who are sharing this journey with us. And that, to me, is the most noble thing that good movies can do and it’s a reason to encourage them and to support them and to go to them.” Ebert had been reviewing films for coming on forty years when he gave that assessment. I haven’t been doing it for a tenth as long. I don’t know if I’ve really earned the right to ponder out loud what the purpose of a good film is. But film critics new and old don’t need much