Movies are, in my view, a two-sided coin. On one side, they are relatively simple things, and are meant to entertain audiences solely through telling an engaging story, often with some flashy visuals and interesting characters. It is no secret that not every movie achieves this but that's besides the point right now. With that said, the other side is that some filmmakers will aim to go deeper with their stories and ideas to put across some thought-provoking concepts though their movies. This is why I find it interesting to go deeper into movies sometimes and be more analytical in talking about the movies I watch. Since I'm cutting down on my standard review length, this new idea for a series ("Deep Dive" is a kind of prototype pilot name; I'm not sure if I'll keep it yet) is my way to talk more in depth about whatever movies I want. This is going to be far more journalistic in style and substance that my normal content, and is absolutely going to be longer. That might not appeal to everyone, but hopefully you'll be able to enjoy the ideas I've got in here. With that out of the way, the first thing I'll be talking about is one of the most recent trends in movies: live-action remakes, specifically those made by Disney. Is there a company as beloved in the film-making industry as Walt Disney Pictures? Adored by children and adults alike globally, Disney are undeniably a giant in the market, and have a number of unquestionable classics across their nearly 100 years of producing movies for the big screen. The story of Disney's fame starts in the 1930s, with the first big hit for the company being "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" in 1937. From there, the company has produced countless animated wonders, ranging from their own stories to renditions of classic fairy tales, whether in their classic forms, or with a modern twist (see "Tangled"). However, as you'll undoubtedly have noticed, these classic animations are being heavily remade in live-action these days, but when do these remakes work? Some people might burn an effigy of me for saying this but they are not always successful, and there are a number of factors which I think play into whether or not these work. I'm splitting these into 4 main headings, and breaking these down: the heroes; the villains; the visuals; and the imagery and symbolism. Of course, these are not the only things that matter in making the movie great: acting, writing in general, cinematography, these things are all still very important. These 4 things are just a few things I have identified that can be compared to the animation to decide whether it has lived up to the original version (you might think of others, but I'm not going to make you read a dissertation no matter how much it may seem like it sometimes). With that said, after just over a month of watching these and getting ready, let's jump in!
The Heroes
With introductions out of the way, where better to start than with the heroes of our Disney classics! This is a fitting place to start largely because this is one element which is handled well in live-action adaptions. Need Sethi for example is an excellent Mowgli in the newer Jungle Book, perfectly conveying the bravery and stubborn nature of the character from the original. The same can be said for Elle Fanning as Aurora AKA Sleeping Beauty (although let's be honest, she's a boring character anyway at the best of times). The massive issue here is that I can't go into a great amount of detail about these newer versions in where they have advanced on the character and the changes have worked, because wherever they have tried it has, in my opinion, been to little effect or success. As long as they are accompanied by strong writing and a good performance, of course directors could advance on the original versions. That said, since there aren't a lot of (read any) examples of this, it seems right now that these remakes are at their best when the heroes are copied practically line for line from their animated counterparts. This is particularly strange because the villains in the movies have actually gone through some progression to greater success (although equally some failures), but we'll get to that later.
You might have guessed this was coming, so let's talk about where the heroes of these new incarnations are not so interesting and/or engaging. There are two key examples I'm going to talk about. The more obvious one is Mia Wasikowska's Alice, in Tim Burton's 2010 version of "Alice in Wonderland". Unlike the original, where Alice was an inquisitive, curious but also brave child, this version is a dull, period stereotype. In making her a young woman rather than a child, Burton and Co. felt the need to make Alice into a clichéd role model, going against the trends and customs of the times. However, in choosing this path, they have turned this character into a drab and uninteresting husk of a character. Where she should be afraid, she appears disinterested; where she should be amazed by the sights she is seeing, even if she is in a dream, she shrugs it off as if it is standard for the 1920s. She says no lines with any emotion, and while this could be blamed on the actress, I do not honestly think any actress could have made a character this bland into an engaging presence. The rest of the cast in that movie doesn't fare any better. A less obvious issue lies with the second example: Lily James' Cinderella. Right, put down your pitchforks and torches Disney fans, because the movie is fine (I don't think I would go further than fine), but I have serious issues with the main character. In this movie, we see Cinderella leave the house on a number of occasions, socialise and have friends. She has a life outside of the house, seemingly to make her seem more independent. It's a shame then that it does the exact opposite. In the original, we understand her position as basically a slave of her stepmother, as she never leaves the grounds of the house. We are confined to that location with her, and therefore understand her plight. The problem then with letting her leave is that we can immediately question why she chooses to stand for everything her "family" demands of her, particularly when her friends say the same. I do not care what excuse she constantly throws out. "Because it was her parent's house"? The Evil Stepmother is shown to change the decor and layout of the house so drastically that it is practically a different home all together, so that excuse is irrelevant. She therefore comes across as more weak-minded than a strong, young, independent woman, and somehow more naïve than her animated counterpart. Further, we see her have more breakdowns than just the one from the animation when her dress is torn to shreds (although in this version it is more just mildly ripped), as she also breaks down in tears after her stepmother and stepsisters refuse to let them eat with her, clearly not viewing her as part of the family. However, this immediately makes the second breakdown when she is apparently at her lowest moment much less effective, as we have already seen her in this position, and James actually gives a less emotional performance the second time round. Ultimately, this might be controversial but I hope you can see where I am coming from here. There's nothing wrong with adding to the original characters but, if a writer chooses to, the character's actions should at least aline with the characteristics and personality that the character is clearly meant to imbue.
The Villains
Another essential element to Disney is their villains, as the company have created some of the most iconic baddies to grace our screens over the last 80 years. Ranging from the embodiment of all evil, Maleficent, to more sympathetic villains, such as the tiger Shere Khan, it's undeniable that the rogues gallery the company has devised is perhaps the greatest collection of villainy across all of cinema. However, that also makes them crucial to creating an ideal live-action Disney remake. However, an unfortunate fact is that, with some movies, writers have been rather lazy and simply copied the characters straight from the animated versions. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, these are still excellent characters. Glenn Close is an excellent Cruela De Vil, but there is nothing in her version of the character that cannot be found in her animated counterpart. To a lesser extent, Helena Bonham Carter gives a solid performance in Tim Burton's 2010 "Alice in Wonderland", but it is the exact same as the character that can be found in the cartoon classic. This is perhaps what I would consider one of the 3 types of live-action Disney villain, which can probably be best summed up by calling it the middle ground between the good and the bad. There's nothing inherently wrong with these characters, but following this trend certainly contributes to making a remake seem somewhat unremarkable.
So that is essentially the first category of live-action Disney villain that we see: carbon copies to their animated counterparts. That's all well and good, but, at least in my mind, when a remake is announced, I expect there to be some purpose to that remake, I expect a deeper look at some of the characters or some added story beats the original didn't have. Villains are no exception, and in my mind the two best live-action Disney villains are ones with some added depth. The first of these is the Evil Stepmother from Cinderella. The embodiment of pure hatred in the original animation, Lady Tremaine (played this time round by Cate Blanchett), is given a lot more motivation for her actions. It transpires that she in fact heard Cinderella's father telling her at a young age that he preferred his first wife, and she never felt like a true part of the family since then. We also see her slowly groom Cinderella into a house slave. There is no instantaneous change, and we see her begin by giving her small jobs here and there, before slowly pushing her further into her upsetting situation. I have my own problems with that movie, but some extra insight into the Evil Stepmother was certainly a welcome change. The other villain I have felt worked particularly well was Shere Kahn (voiced by Idris Elba), from 2015's Jungle Book.
Unfortunately, since I am talking about when these movies work and when they don't, that does mean there are some villains which have been poorly translated onto the big screen in comparison to their animated counterparts. This tends to happen most often when the personality of the character is drastically changed or unfortunately not understood by the filmmakers. There are two main cases where the villain has not worked well on the big screen. The first major issue case, as some may have predicted, is Maleficent, portrayed by Angelina Jolie in the movie "Maleficent". In the movie, we learn exactly why the Mistress of All Evil despises the royalty of the fairy tale kingdom of Sleeping Beauty (the now king removed her wings at a young age after gaining her trust to earn respect), and therefore why she becomes the terror we see in the animated version. That's all well and good, and I've just said that I enjoy when villains are given extra details to add to them in live-action. However, this is a different case, as the transformation into the character we recognise (unforgivably, sans green skin) occurs halfway through the movie. The second half focuses on her relationship with a young Aurora and paints her as an anti-hero at worst, a heroine at the best. Her curse almost seems out of character compared to the rest of the movie. This is at complete loss of all that Maleficent embodied through all of our childhoods - the mystical, green-skinned witch, iconic in Disney lore, and generally agreed to be the most despicable, wicked villain the company has ever created. Therefore, the biggest issue of this villain is, somewhat strangely, that she isn't a villain. Changes and additions to a character are fine, as I said above, but this seems incredibly drastic and a complete destruction of the image all fans of Disney have built over the years.
The second problem arises in a more recent Disney movie, and is one you might have been less likely to consider. The character I'm referring to is (don't freak out, let me explain) Gaston from this year's "Beauty and the Beast". Don't get me wrong, Luke Evans gives an enjoyable performance in the role, and it works as a villain. That said, I am not looking at Gaston as a villain, I'm comparing it to the animated version to judge whether it is a strong adaption, and in my humble opinion, it is not. Spoilers ahead for both versions of Beauty and the Beast if you care about either one of these movie's plots remaining unspoilt for you. Let's start with the 1991 animated classic. In this version, Gaston is consistently shown to be a narcissistic, self-centred man who believes that he is God's gift to women, and thus that Belle is unreasonable for refusing to marry him. At the same time, however, he seems to have the best interests of the townspeople at heart. He remains this same character throughout the film, even when he decides to turn the townspeople against the Beast and attempts to have Maurice incarcerated in an asylum. The incarceration seems reasonable in his mind, and best for the townspeople. After all, who would believe an old eccentric ranting about a gigantic Beast? Further, when he decides to kill the Beast, seeing Belle's love for him, this is due to his need for Belle to love him and determination to be loved by her. Equally the element of protection can be brought in once again. He is the same character throughout the whole film, and it is only at the climax that he first comes across as the villain of the piece. Compare that to the live-action version. It starts off the same, with a very similar character but with an added detail suggesting he has served in a war. However, when Maurice initially returns, this character takes a hard right turn. Whereas he has initially been portrayed as a character only seeking Belle's love by persistence, he attempts to leave her father to die in the woods, believing that she will then need someone to take care of her. Notice a difference in these two characters? The new version is more inherently a villain, willing to resort to murder to get what he wants, whereas the old version never comes across as particularly malevolent until the end. Even then, however, he is the same character and they are believable actions. It seems as if the new filmmakers did not understand how to create a three-dimensional character over a paper thin villain. Understanding the villain is crucial to Disney movies. They embody the opposite of the hero, but should also remain strong characters in their own right. The live-action movies are at their best when they take the character seen in the original, but, rather than simply copy them, add to them, making them more believable and relatable. Of course, as we see here, this runs the risk of drastically changing their personalities or even essentially changing their characters all together. Understanding where there is a line and when it is crossed with altering characters - that understanding is key to recognising when live-action Disney movies work and when they do not.
So that is essentially the first category of live-action Disney villain that we see: carbon copies to their animated counterparts. That's all well and good, but, at least in my mind, when a remake is announced, I expect there to be some purpose to that remake, I expect a deeper look at some of the characters or some added story beats the original didn't have. Villains are no exception, and in my mind the two best live-action Disney villains are ones with some added depth. The first of these is the Evil Stepmother from Cinderella. The embodiment of pure hatred in the original animation, Lady Tremaine (played this time round by Cate Blanchett), is given a lot more motivation for her actions. It transpires that she in fact heard Cinderella's father telling her at a young age that he preferred his first wife, and she never felt like a true part of the family since then. We also see her slowly groom Cinderella into a house slave. There is no instantaneous change, and we see her begin by giving her small jobs here and there, before slowly pushing her further into her upsetting situation. I have my own problems with that movie, but some extra insight into the Evil Stepmother was certainly a welcome change. The other villain I have felt worked particularly well was Shere Kahn (voiced by Idris Elba), from 2015's Jungle Book.
Unfortunately, since I am talking about when these movies work and when they don't, that does mean there are some villains which have been poorly translated onto the big screen in comparison to their animated counterparts. This tends to happen most often when the personality of the character is drastically changed or unfortunately not understood by the filmmakers. There are two main cases where the villain has not worked well on the big screen. The first major issue case, as some may have predicted, is Maleficent, portrayed by Angelina Jolie in the movie "Maleficent". In the movie, we learn exactly why the Mistress of All Evil despises the royalty of the fairy tale kingdom of Sleeping Beauty (the now king removed her wings at a young age after gaining her trust to earn respect), and therefore why she becomes the terror we see in the animated version. That's all well and good, and I've just said that I enjoy when villains are given extra details to add to them in live-action. However, this is a different case, as the transformation into the character we recognise (unforgivably, sans green skin) occurs halfway through the movie. The second half focuses on her relationship with a young Aurora and paints her as an anti-hero at worst, a heroine at the best. Her curse almost seems out of character compared to the rest of the movie. This is at complete loss of all that Maleficent embodied through all of our childhoods - the mystical, green-skinned witch, iconic in Disney lore, and generally agreed to be the most despicable, wicked villain the company has ever created. Therefore, the biggest issue of this villain is, somewhat strangely, that she isn't a villain. Changes and additions to a character are fine, as I said above, but this seems incredibly drastic and a complete destruction of the image all fans of Disney have built over the years.
The second problem arises in a more recent Disney movie, and is one you might have been less likely to consider. The character I'm referring to is (don't freak out, let me explain) Gaston from this year's "Beauty and the Beast". Don't get me wrong, Luke Evans gives an enjoyable performance in the role, and it works as a villain. That said, I am not looking at Gaston as a villain, I'm comparing it to the animated version to judge whether it is a strong adaption, and in my humble opinion, it is not. Spoilers ahead for both versions of Beauty and the Beast if you care about either one of these movie's plots remaining unspoilt for you. Let's start with the 1991 animated classic. In this version, Gaston is consistently shown to be a narcissistic, self-centred man who believes that he is God's gift to women, and thus that Belle is unreasonable for refusing to marry him. At the same time, however, he seems to have the best interests of the townspeople at heart. He remains this same character throughout the film, even when he decides to turn the townspeople against the Beast and attempts to have Maurice incarcerated in an asylum. The incarceration seems reasonable in his mind, and best for the townspeople. After all, who would believe an old eccentric ranting about a gigantic Beast? Further, when he decides to kill the Beast, seeing Belle's love for him, this is due to his need for Belle to love him and determination to be loved by her. Equally the element of protection can be brought in once again. He is the same character throughout the whole film, and it is only at the climax that he first comes across as the villain of the piece. Compare that to the live-action version. It starts off the same, with a very similar character but with an added detail suggesting he has served in a war. However, when Maurice initially returns, this character takes a hard right turn. Whereas he has initially been portrayed as a character only seeking Belle's love by persistence, he attempts to leave her father to die in the woods, believing that she will then need someone to take care of her. Notice a difference in these two characters? The new version is more inherently a villain, willing to resort to murder to get what he wants, whereas the old version never comes across as particularly malevolent until the end. Even then, however, he is the same character and they are believable actions. It seems as if the new filmmakers did not understand how to create a three-dimensional character over a paper thin villain. Understanding the villain is crucial to Disney movies. They embody the opposite of the hero, but should also remain strong characters in their own right. The live-action movies are at their best when they take the character seen in the original, but, rather than simply copy them, add to them, making them more believable and relatable. Of course, as we see here, this runs the risk of drastically changing their personalities or even essentially changing their characters all together. Understanding where there is a line and when it is crossed with altering characters - that understanding is key to recognising when live-action Disney movies work and when they do not.
Visual Wonder
Right, this is a relatively simple point so this it should not take as long as the other points have. This is particularly easy since the majority of these new adaptions have managed to match the visual flair of their animated flip sides for the most part. Pairing the style of the originals with the enhanced CGI and visual possibilities modern effects work offers, the visuals of the movies have been excellent and at least made most adaptions worthy remakes at least in this department. However, one movie stands out that has missed the point quite significantly. That movie - Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland". I'm getting sick of talking about this movie, but it really does make so many mistakes. It is true that both the animated movie and the live-action adaptation show strange visuals and odd sights, but the animated side of this coin has one very important feature: actual colour. Within that version, Wonderland is a colourful...well, wonderland. That's the way it should be, using a whole mix of colours together across the entirety of the movie. It gives us a reason to be drawn into the world that Alice explores, and let's us enjoy what we're seeing on the screen and be dazzled by the whirlwind of colours. Now let's talk about the doom and gloom of Burton's adaptation. Although there are some colours, some purples and (very dark) blues thrown in on occasion, in Burton's seeming determination to show Wonderland (sorry, 'Underland') in a post-apocalyptic fashion, almost every aspect of the world is attacked with a black, red, dark green or some other generically evil colour filter. Failing to match the palette applied way back in 1951, the new version misses the magic of the world of the animation, and contributes fairly heavily to my own distaste of the movie years after I first saw it. That, and the CGI is awful, but that's a point for another time.
Imagery and Symbols
This is likely the deepest point I'm going to make, but also the point I feel the most passionate about making. The best way to start this is by taking a look at two versions of the song "Belle", one from the animated Beauty and the Beast, and one from the more recent 2017 remake. Take a look at the animated version first (sorry for the sing-a-long version, and you won't have to watch the whole video to understand my point; just some of the town sequence):
Alright, keep that video in mind. Now here's some of the live-action version:
Did you notice any particular difference between the two versions in terms of imagery (and no, I'm not talking about that one's animated or that they have different actors)? In the more recent version, we see all colours of the rainbow in the crowds of Belle's town, worn by all different people. However, for all the colours in the animated iteration, while the town wears largely similar colours, there is actually only one character wearing blue: Belle. Although this might seem trivial on the surface, this is, in my mind at least, a very key symbolic difference that has such a powerful contribution to the story. Within the newer version, we are forced to rely almost entirely on the exposition of the townspeople during the song to understand Belle's peculiarity, what makes her stand out from everyone else. Although sexism was a considerable issue in the past (not that it isn't today of course), the only factor about Belle that seems to make her stand out is that she reads and isn't attracted to town muscle, Gaston. Now think about the animated version. Before we even know a great deal about her character, we understand her as a person, and support her fully. In showing her to be the only person wearing blue, she immediately comes across as a fiercely independent, strong young woman in a time when that was largely frowned upon by society. Her colours give the townspeople a reason to notice her in the crowds; to them, her clothes are almost scandalous, shocking to them that a person in their "small, provincial lives" dare to make such a statement. Bear in mind that's without even mentioning her more modern outfit compared to the rest of the women of the town. It is an absolutely ingenious piece of imagery, and one which serves to allow the film to more poetically put it's message of independence and individuality across. It's an incredibly small detail, but one the live-action versions of Disney movies have missed from their respective adaptions. Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is of course once again likely to be the more obvious offender in this regard, with the message of fun and the need for a little bit of madness in our lives being lost beneath Burton's onslaught of CGI and unnecessary battle sequences. However, I had to use "Beauty and the Beast", not only because I believe it is a stronger message, but because I believe that this is so small a detail in the original, but one that contributes greatly towards the actual story. Of course, do not mistake this for me saying I didn't enjoy 2017's Beauty and the Beast; I did, thoroughly in fact. However, it was always the messages and images of Disney's classics that makes them stand out and live on in time and our memories for all our lives. In creating a live-action setting, there is an unfortunate urge to drown the screen in flashy visuals and set pieces, but this is all lacking of the true spirit of Disney. In my honest opinion, to be a truly great Disney live-action re-imagining, the filmmakers, directors, cast and crew all alike need to look far beyond the physical mask and story of the animated feature. When you look at the classics, and look deeper, chances are you will find something mature, something heart-breaking, something thought-provoking, or another message which will stay with you for years. Only Disney movies can do this, and it is something that I hope future adaptions (such as Aladdin, Mulan, and The Lion King) take care to search for and acknowledge. At least that's what I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment