Family Films – Page 6 – Colin McMahon

Silly Things Written on the Internet or Frozen is NOT About Gay Marriage (Sorry)

Posted on May 7, 2014 by Colin McMahon

The internet really is a wonderful place. It is an actual fact that, with the internet, all the knowledge in the world is at your fingertips (what does that say about you being here?). People use the internet for a variety of reasons: knowledge, pleasure, and voice being among the top three. In this article, I will focus on the third: voice. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that is a fact. That said, not every opinion is valid, and no – acting on non-valid opinions is not okay (e.g. – let’s say a father decides his kids shouldn’t eat more than once a week, that is his opinion and he is a monster). There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas or talking things out, it is how the mind stays active.
All of that said: I think that this article is pretty silly, and not well-thought out at all. For the record, I do not think that Willie Muse is a stupid person or an idiot in any way… but there are a few flaws in his argument. For those out there too lazy to click on the link, first off: really? Second, Muse is arguing that last year’s Disney film, Frozen, is an allegory supporting gay marriage. His argument hinges on three parts: 1) Elsa Represents Gay People; 2)The Film Shows Flaws of Traditional Marriage; 3)Alternate Family Structures (are) Very Favorably Presented. Three points… let me rebuttal.

1) I will acknowledge that there are certain parallels between Elsa and a repressed gay adolescent. That said, note how I had to use the adjective ‘repressed’ to make the comparison work? If that gay adolescent grows up in an open and accepting household, then this whole comparison goes out the window. Generally, if one detail dislodges an argument: it’s not a great argument. Ignoring Elsa’s repression to say “that’s what being gay is like” can be insulting to all the other forms of repression that are out there. By the logic used, I can also say that Remy from Ratatouille represents gay people. I suppose he kinda does……. Maybe? That would ignore the much larger message though in favor of a smaller perspective. Remy, for instance, is dealing with issues of identity not connected to sexuality but rather with artistic freedom vs. social expectation. People are much more complicated than just their sexuality but to diminish Elsa’s real problem is too miss a good chunk of the movie: ELSA HAS ABUSIVE PARENTS. Seriously, she is living with people who (while not being evil) are incapable of accepting Elsa for who she is. Elsa could represent any child was is abused for being different (whether that difference is sexual, medical, religious, or countless others). Elsa could be a representation of someone with severe anxiety issues who is afraid to leave her home or be herself around anyone until one day she just LETS IT GO and realizes that living paralyzed with fear isn’t a way to live… wait. See, while saying that Elsa represents gay people isn’t the most ridiculous thing, it isn’t a great building block for a strong argument.

You don't have to be gay to suffer through repression and anxiety about who you are. — You don’t have to be gay to suffer through repression and anxiety about who you are.

2) NO. This is the one I take the most issue with. Prince Hans and Anna do not represent “traditional marriage” at all. They represent the fairy tale notion of one-look true-love destined to be together trope of a large portion of folklore (and early Disney animated features). The only “traditional” element of this relationship is that it involves a man and a woman. Also, while it is true that, in medieval times, marriage was often a political move, Hans does take it a couple steps past political takeover and into full-blown-I-Would-Run-Over-Your-Dog-Too-If-I-Could evil mode (I’ve already written about this in an earlier post). So the film really isn’t showing the flaws of traditional marriage, it is showcasing the obvious flaw of fairy tale marriages: namely don’t marry someone you just met (DUH). For the record, it would be much more like a “traditional marriage” if Hans and Anna were being forced into it (similar to the plot of Brave) but, just the fact that it is Anna’s choice… women didn’t make choices like that back then.

Man, the Lion King has some real bad things to say about "traditional" uncle-nephew relationships. — Man, *the Lion King* has some real bad things to say about “traditional” uncle-nephew relationships.

3) I don’t really feel that the trolls are an alternate family structure. They are not Kristoff’s real parents, sure, but that only makes them his ADOPTIVE parents. While I’m no expert on troll physiology (nor do I want to be), there appear to be male and female trolls present in the group. Grandparents, parents, kids: all age tiers are present. Looks like one giant, loving family all living together. Is it superior to Elsa’s and Anna’s parents: absolutely. Funny how having love and supportiveness in a family dynamic will do that. Yeah though, how are they really different from Aunt May and Uncle Ben in the Spider-Man universe? Just because parents adopt children doesn’t make it “an alternate family structure.” If anything (and I acknowledge this is a stretch), the argument could be made that Anna, Elsa, and Olaf represent the alternate family structure… and don’t show it favorably. Two women (sisters no less) bringing life to a snowman through some form of “unnatural” magic, and the resulting creation has no social awareness and just wishes (unconsciously) for quick death at the change of seasons. For the record, I don’t think this is a serious message to be taken from the movie, I’m just saying it to make a point.

Look at how confused he is! This is what happens when a snowman has two mommies!

Frozen has received a lot of attention, maybe more than it deserves. There can be no question, however, that it is a culturally significant film. A lot of analysis has been, and will be applied to this movie. Some of it will be really insightful and shed lead on why this film had the impact that it did. Some of it… will just be silly.

All joking aside, I may be crazy to say that Frozen is a movie about the power of family love and acceptance and the relationship of two sisters. I could be crazy for thinking this. — All joking aside, I may be crazy to say that *Frozen* is a movie about the power of love and acceptance, and the relationship of two sisters. I could be crazy for thinking this.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Brother Bear

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Everyone is in love with Disney Animation right now. Frozen has melted the hearts of everyone who has seen it. Building off of a revival that began with Princess and the Frog back in 2009, Walt Disney has returned to relevance. They are no longer simply the studio that produces Pixar movies. However, things were not always so wonderful in the House of Mouse. Turn back time ten years and you get what many consider to be the darkest period for Walt Disney Animation. The studio was dying: the ill-fated Home on the Range was about to be released and the name Disney meant “cheap sequel” to everyone who knew them and “another word for Pixar” to those that didn’t. In short: not great. The studio just wasn’t producing hits anymore. Even the surprising Lilo & Stitch wasn’t enough to turn things around. When Brother Bear was released in 2003, it was to mediocre reviews. The film was seen and forgotten. Today when people list the Disney Classics, Brother Bear is not a film on anyone’s lips.

And that’s a shame. Not because I think the film was a classic (NOPE) but because it was close to being something really special.

Let’s start with the good: the story. The dramatic conflict in this film had incredible potential. Kenai (voiced by Joaquin Phoenix) is unique among Disney protagonists. Remember in The Lion King, when Simba thought he was responsible for his father’s death (spoilers)? Well Kenai actually is responsible for the deaths of his loved ones. How is that for a flawed protagonist? The tragic event that claims his older brother’s life in the beginning of the film results directly from Kenai’s childish nature and then inability to accept responsibility for his actions.

The relationship between the three brothers is believable and part of the film's strong emotional core. — The relationship between the three brothers is believable and part of the film’s strong emotional core.

Later on, when Kenai has been bear-ified, he meets a cub named Koda (Jeremy Suarez). Koda is lost, having been separated from his mother. Kenai is lost: having just killed a bear, only to be turned into one by his now-spirit brother. By the way if you think it’s a horrible coincidence that Koda lost his mother at roughly the same time Kenai killed a bear… yeah: flawed protagonist, remember?

Kenai's transformation as a man is what drives the film. The visual change is a nice touch. — Kenai’s transformation as a man is what drives the film. The visual change is a nice touch.

But this is the triumph of the movie: I didn’t hate Kenai. Functionally he serves as the villain. He is the reason for the setbacks in the movie, for himself, for Koda – pretty much for everyone. Yet these conflicts are not the result of malice but the consequences of a child’s immature actions. Kenai is young and needs to grow up. Brother Bear faces the fact that every protagonist is capable of doing the wrong thing. What makes Kenai the hero is how he responds to his actions. I would love to be able to tell you exactly how he responded but… we’ll get to that in the “ugly”.

For now: the bad. This movie suffers from “Genie” syndrome. Genie syndrome, for those out there who aren’t familiar, applies to animated movies which feel the need to include a loud, in-your-face, pop-culture side character; regardless if it contributes to the story in any meaningful way. Everyone wanted to recreate the Genie after Aladdin: that was lightning that never struck twice. So in Brother Bear we have:

Rutt and Tuke. No I can't tell you which is which. No, it doesn't matter. — Rutt and Tuke. No I can’t tell you which is which. No, it doesn’t matter.

They’re not as horrible as some of the others but they do not serve any real function other than to let the audience know that the plot will be stopping for a few minutes to have some horrible, Canadian-stereotype humor. I enjoy making fun of Canadians as much as the next guy but please: they give us better material than this. Okay, here comes the ugly:

F*cking Phil Collins. For the record, I don’t usually hate Phil Collins as much as other people. I really enjoyed his songs in Tarzan. But in this: the use of his music single-handedly makes the film noticeably worse.

I praised the emotional conflict that fuels this movie. Kenai’s acceptance of responsibility could have been one of the most powerful scenes in Disney Animation. This is the studio that turned “The Snow Queen” into a moving drama. Yet here is how the climax is handled in Brother Bear:

Aside from those written lyrics (which draw attention to the horrendous, ACTUAL lyrics): that is the exact sequence from the movie. There is no consequence, no resolution, just a crappy music number to gloss over every important action in the film. It is impossible to only blame Phil Collins. Someone approved of this. The directors approved of this. There is no dramatic punch in this film, just Phil Collins trying (and failing) to get another Academy Award. I wish I could say that this was the only bad song in the movie but the music is lackluster throughout. Again: shocking for a Disney movie.

Could have been so much more satisfying.

Yet despite all this: I didn’t hate Brother Bear. It’s fate is, in some ways, far worse than being hated. Hated films earn a place in memory. Brother Bear instead is banished to the nether of average. Eleven years later and it is nearly forgotten. There is nothing really to say about it in the end other than it could have been better, could have been worse. Ouch.

Don't worry, it got a completely unneeded sequel. As I said: these were the times for Disney. — Don’t worry, it got a completely unneeded sequel. As I said: these were the times for Disney.

Remember That Animated Return of the King Movie?

Posted on January 20, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Whether the criticism is fair or not, Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug has certainly received its share. I stand by my initial review of the movie yet I can definitely understand where people are coming from. In making three movies, the only thing Peter Jackson has proved so far is that two films would have been enough. There and Back Again will have to prove itself this Christmas. Yet whether that film is good or not, the base criticism will remain: it isn’t the book. At the conclusion of this trilogy there still will be no faithful, live-action adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s book. It seems that The Hobbit was just destined to be swallowed up by Lord of the Rings, the epic film trilogy that preceded it.

If only it could have been like that animated version that was created by Rankin/Bass back in 1977. That adaptation was nearly spot on (for those Tolkien fans out there who haven’t seen it – do so). If only Rankin/Bass had continued adapting Tolkien stories, maybe then we’d have a complete set of faithful adaptations. Well, they did do one other – just one other. The Return of the King was released in 1980. Yes… The Return of the King… because nobody has time for beginnings and middles anymore. Actually it had a lot more to do with the fact that there was an animated version of the first part of The Lord of the Rings released around the same time (also check that one out… it is interesting to say the least – more on that later). Anyway, point is they tried their hand at Lord of the Rings… and it felt way too much like the Hobbit.

For starters, examine the cover they went with for the DVD release. Notice anything? Hobbits and dwarves, front and center. Now it’s understandable to put Frodo and Sam on the cover as they are two of the main characters in both the book and the film. Where is Aragorn you may ask? Not important: at least not as important as those two dwarves, neither of whom is Gimli by the way. Also, is that a dragon in the upper corner… what?

In some cases: covers can be misleading. After all, they are the product of marketing campaigns and not the filmmakers. Suffice it to say: the marketing was trying to make this resemble the Hobbit as much as possible. Sound familiar?

Fun fact: there is actually a hobbit on this poster!

So marketing is on the same page. But how is the Return of the King content-wise? It is not an epic. Not by any stretch of the imagination. This version of J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterpiece is framed as the simple story of two hobbits simply walking into Mordor. Yes, Aragorn is in the film but is barely featured in it. Legolas and Gimli are cut altogether and there is very little focus on the battles. In fairness, for being only 98 minutes long, the film does manage to include an awful lot, it is merely simplified.

For the record, I always like how they made the Witch King look in this. Too bad the rest of the Nazgul look laughable. — For the record, I always liked how they made the Witch King look in this. Too bad the rest of the Nazgul appear laughable.

In watching Rankin/Bass’ version of Return of the King, the audience really does get the hobbit-sized version. The story is revealed to us by the hobbits after all (with the aid of a minstrel, hired by Gandalf, cause why not) so they naturally take center stage. The more epic parts of the story are barely touched upon because hobbits are not interested in that sort of thing.

This is a photo of everyone who has a major role in the film. Sorry for the small size but please note: half of them are hobbits.

Back again from the Hobbit are the musical numbers. I am aware Tolkien included songs in his work but can someone please tell me on what page can “Where There’s a Whip There’s a Way” is found? Seriously, I used to love that song as a kid: totally my jam.

My point is this: all of this has happened before and all this will happen again. Tolkien, and books as a platform, enjoy an advantage that films, particularly blockbusters, do not. They can change tone. The Hobbit is nothing like the Lord of the Rings. It was written long before Tolkien ever envisioned Sauron or the Nazgul or anything like that. It didn’t matter because the Hobbit was written first. Peter Jackson never had that luxury.

Rest assured, the hobbit bromance is in tact.

If he were to make a version of the Hobbit as it was originally created, then non-Tolkien fans would have had a few questions, namely: where is Gandalf throughout most of this movie, it seems kind of convenient that he just vanishes and appears as plot dictates. Why does the all powerful ring have no effect on Bilbo Baggins (who wears it for long stretches of time in the book). What was the dwarves’ plan for dealing with Smaug? Why does no one in Lake Town think it’s a bad idea for thirteen dwarves and a hobbit to go wake up a dragon? Why are the elves such jerks (still a valid question)? Why does Bilbo even care about these dwarves (seriously, if you think Thorin is an ass in the movie…)?

Anyway, I’m not making excuses for Jackson’s epic. “Why is there an elf-dwarf love story” is also a valid question.

There is a weakness in Hollywood that success merits only additional success. The child-friendly version of the Hobbit created by Rankin/Bass was a huge hit, therefore a child-like version of Return of the King is the way to go. An epic version of the Lord of the Rings was a masterpiece so Bilbo better get epic with it. The good news is this: the books still exist and will always exist. People will keep falling in love with the story and maybe one day Hollywood will get it right. If not, you can rest comfortably knowing that, after it’s all done, some rapid fan will edit down Peter Jackson’s trilogy to one movie and release that cut. After all, it didn’t take long for Jar Jar Binks to vanish from Star Wars.