Family Films – Page 7 – Colin McMahon

"Nobody Calls Me Chicken!"

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Colin McMahon

If you’re from the eighties or nineties, odds are that you’ve seen the Back to the Future trilogy. They’re awesome films filled with memorable characters and quotable lines. The first of the trilogy, the original Back to the Future, was released in (you guessed it) 1985 with the two sequels coming in 1989 and 1990 respectively. Wow, those sequels sure got pumped out quickly. There’s a simple explanation for that: they were shot back-to-back. This is not the only time such a technique has been done. Other examples include the Pirates of the Caribbean films (two and three were shot back-to-back, we’ll talk about those another time) and The Matrix (two and three shot back-to-back). The most famous example is obviously The Lord of the Rings where all three films were shot one at the same time. Anyway, let’s talk a bit more about theses Back to the Future sequels.

They were not made for the story. Director Robert Zemeckis is on record as saying that the original film was not envisioned with sequels in mind. Pretty obvious really, despite the film’s classic cliffhanger ending. Back to the Future is a quirky family comedy built around the mechanic of time travel and what it would be like to see your parents in their teen years (turns out it’s really disturbing). That’s great material for a single movie but doesn’t work so well stretched into three. Good thing they didn’t do that. The sequels have their own moral lesson that is spread over the two films and that is: a person chooses their own future. A lesser moral lesson is don’t mess with time travel.

Yet whenever there are unplanned sequels (that happen due to a studios financial desires over a director’s creative ones), the writing always takes a hit. Characters get deeper, they have more emotional traits than we’ve seen before (and not always for the better). Plots can get needlessly convoluted and interesting aspects of the original run the risk of feeling tired after three movies. Casting problems can also drastically effect shooting (for better or for worse). The Back to the Future trilogy suffers from all four of these afflictions.

When this baby gets two sequels, you're going to see some serious shit. — When this baby gets two sequels, you’re going to see some serious shit.

Let’s start with Marty. As my title implies, he develops a pretty serious character flaw. Mainly, calling him chicken is the key to getting him to do literally anything. From fighting to drag racing, there is nothing Marty McFly won’t do if someone (doesn’t really seem to matter who) calls him chicken. The problem: Marty looks really stupid. Seriously, the person didn’t even swear at him and he flies off into a completely unrealistic and cartoonish reaction. This is a strong departure from the Marty McFly of the first film who essentially played the straight man (comedy term) in a world that’s gone topsy-turvy. That Marty was identifiable and likeable.

In the sequels, the audience is expected to still feel those emotions for Marty, who in the future is a ruined wreck of former ambitions. What happened to screw his life up? Somebody called him chicken… so Marty recklessly raced him and got into a major car accident. It’s like asking someone to feel sorry for Aaron Hernandez right now. Yeah something bad happened, but the character totally deserved it. (I do not mean to accuse Marty McFly of something as serious as murder, he may be an idiot but at least he’s not a psycho) There is no sign of this trait in the first movie. Granted, no one calls him “chicken” but to have such a complex would warrant additional bizarre behavior. Like I said before: Marty is the normal guy in Back to the Future.

The sequels needed to artificially create a flaw in Marty that could be solved at the end.

So that didn’t work out so great for the sequels. Another problem (and on this one the movies themselves agree with me): don’t mess with time travel. Any writer will tell you this. Unless every aspect of plot has been painstakingly thought out, there will be problems. Even in the first film – not everything makes sense. It’s okay then because the plot is never grievously affected. Let’s look at Back to the Future Part II.

Old Biff and the time machine. He takes it, that’s fine. How Doc and Marty get it back? Biff returns to the current future timeline (the one that Doc and Marty are in) despite the fact he has just radically altered past events. I know: it’s a movie. But this movie draws attention to the concept of its timeline in a later scene.

Doc forgot to add variable "X" for plot holes. — Doc forgot to add variable “X” for plot holes.

Right there, Doc is saying that old Biff created a new timeline in the past. So how was he able to return to the old one? Come to think of it, the plot in Back to the Future Part II feels the weakest of the three movies. Sure there’s the cool future scenes but those are sadly over and done with in about twenty minutes. Then there’s a brief stint in a hellish nightmare version of 1985 (also interesting) before the finale returns to (at this point worn out) 1955. That’s two movies about time travel that center the bulk of their story in the same year. The audience saw 1955 in the first movie, they didn’t need to see it again.

There is an explanation for this. Really simple one too:

Crispin Glover did not return to reprise the role of George McFly. They wanted him to – it wasn’t a writing choice. It was a financial one. When Glover could not return, Back to the Future Part II was rewritten to largely remove his character. So, because of the casting department, no one out there will ever know what the original plan for the sequel would have been. It’s really too bad as Glover is such a presence in the first film and is missed in the other two. Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd are great, don’t get me wrong, but Glover is arguably the third best actor in the first movie. He is missed in the two sequels. Also missing:

This was a problem of a different sort. The original Jennifer (Claudia Wells) could not return to the sequels for personal reasons. The role was recast with Elisabeth Shue filling her shoes. The problem: Shue is not a great actor. She doesn’t have a lot of presence or comedic timing. Really, one can’t be sure if Wells would have been better but Jennifer was a much smaller role in the first movie. As they had to recast anyway, don’t you wish they could have gotten someone a little better?

Oh, and not to leave Back to the Future Part III free of criticism. The sole reason the old west was chosen for the setting was because Michael J. Fox thought it would be cool. Turns out he was right. That’s not the criticism, this is:

Remember that whole moral lesson that time travel was bad? Doc was the one preaching it. Frequently in the two sequels, Doc outlines his plan to fix things and destroy the time machine. Yet at the end of the trilogy, what does he do? He builds another time machine. Don’t worry, this time it’s a flying train so it’s so much less conspicuous than a delorean. This action completely flies in the face of the Doc character that the sequels have been establishing. It creates a confusing ending that only makes sense if…

Yeah, they were leaving the door open for Back to the Future Part IV. It never happened. Still, this is what happens when things are done solely for dollars. Everything else is sacrificed to produce cash revenue. For the record: I really like the Back to the Future trilogy. I grew up with it and, despite the plot holes and other logic gaps, I find them to be funny and entertaining movies. That’s the most important thing. They still work. It’s just sad they were made for the dollar first.

On the plus side, we did get to see Michael J. Fox in drag.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of it or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

"Children's Movies": The Incredibles

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Colin McMahon

I figured I would conclude a week’s worth of superhero posts by talking about one of my favorite “original” movies from the era: Pixar’s The Incredibles. The reason I put original in quotes is because, for all intents and purposes, The Incredibles basically adapted and made family-friendly the plot of Watchmen. Not that that’s a bad thing. For my money, The Incredibles is the best film version of Watchmen out there. Anyway, I’m not going to go in-depth on this comparison today. That’s not my reason for talking about The Incredibles. I watched this film yesterday and started really thinking about the content. The Incredibles does not have kids as its target audience. Does that mean it’s not a children’s movie: no. Does that mean that kids won’t enjoy it: no. Should you show it to your kids (if you have them): of course, it’s completely appropriate. But the fact remains that The Incredibles tells a far more adult-oriented story than most western animated films.

How many movies aimed at kids open with legal action?

Basic plot rundown for The Incredibles: a family of superheroes in hiding must dawn their masks again to do battle with a new super villain bent on world domination. Doesn’t get more basic than that. Well that may be the plot, but that does not touch the themes of the movie. At its heart, The Incredibles is a commentary on one thing: marriage. I suppose if one wanted to look approach a little closer, the film is essentially the fantastical approach to how a marriage survives a mid-life crisis. Not a theme most kids are fully going to understand.

Bob Parr (Mr. Incredible) is our protagonist and definitely struggling with his sense of self-worth.

So thematically this is not a story about friendship or growing up, this is about what happens after. As such, most of the issues in this film are elaborations on that theme. Sure there are battles as well. Superheroes punch bad guys in the face and cause giant explosions. I know how I’m typing it makes it seem tacked on but it’s not. That’s one of the reasons that I really like The Incredibles. It works on multiple levels. You can watch the movie as nothing more than a high-action superhero romp and you will not be disappointed. Personally I think there is a bit more James Bond than Superman in the film (that might just be because of Michael Giacchino’s soundtack). Again, not a bad thing.

Let’s start with one of the larger subplots and one that may or may not be appropriate for younger viewers: cheating. In the first half of the film, Helen Parr (Elastigirl) is very suspicious that her husband may not be entirely faithful. She openly accuses him of being it later on, but anyway, back to it. This means that we’re dealing with sex in a children’s movie (gasp). You may say I’m reaching here, that while Bob might lie, there is no implication of sex or other sexual behavior in the movie. Really then, let’s look at the opening prologue:

I may have a dirty mind but I don’t think that’s just playful banter. There’s one or two things implied. But it’s not just this time either. In the last third of the movie, once the villain Syndrome has captured the family (he is holding them in his anti-gravity field) he makes a very lewd gesture once he realizes that Dash and Violet are Mr. Incredible’s kids. Let me clarify: it is lewd to adults but subtle enough that children might not notice, this movie is clever like that. Really writer/director Brad Bird should be commended for his use of subtly in this movie.

Finding another woman's hair on his clothes takes on a whole other level with age. — Finding another woman’s hair on his clothes takes on a whole other level to older audience members.

So the theme of mid-life crisis vs. marriage rears its head in this suspicion of adultery. Of course Bob is not cheating on Helen, the only reason for his suspicious behavior comes from the fact he is lying to her about his superhero life and work. I guess that’s better?

He's not cheating. He's just choking her! — He’s not cheating. He’s just choking her!

What other problems become part of a mid-life crisis outside of marriage. Death for one. Mr. Incredible has reached the age where people he knows are starting to die. In this case, they are not natural deaths. Again here comes the cleverness of Brad Bird and The Incredibles. It also ties back into the comparison to Watchmen. In both movies, someone is killing a lot of heroes.

A lot of good people die in this film. It handles it in the least jarring method possible.

Bob Parr is trying to hang onto his past while it’s being removed. He has reached the point where his old life is over (he doesn’t see his old friends outside of Frozone cause well – they aren’t around anymore) and his new life is going on. In typical mid-life crisis fashion, he is unsatisfied with it. What is his new life: marriage. It all comes back around. It is only when the two are brought together that our protagonist truly understands the strengths of his married life and the weaknesses of his role as a superhero.

I find this to be the scariest and most intense images in the movie. It also nicely symbolizes the dangers of being a superhero AND a parent. — I find this to be the scariest and most intense image in the movie. It also nicely symbolizes the dangers of being a superhero AND a parent.

I know it may seem like I’m trying to make The Incredibles out as too adult for children but I’m not. This is a great family film. I don’t think it should be condemned for approaching more adult material, I think it should be emulated. Western animation could use more films like this one. Movies that can be enjoyed by everyone but ring truer to the older members of the household. I mean think about it, if this movie was live action, it would have been rated PG-13, not simply PG. Western culture has a view that animated cartoons and their subsequent movies can only be for kids. Brad Bird has stated he does not hold with this view: “the point is, animation is not a genre. It is a method of storytelling. People are constantly analyzing it and misanalysing it as if it is a genre. It isn’t a genre. It can do horror films, it can do adult comedies if it wanted to, it could do fairy tales, it could do science fiction, it could do musicals, it could mystery, it can do anything.”

It's all fun and games until you realize he is shooting at a teenage girl. — It’s all fun and games until you realize he is shooting at a teenage girl.

Yeah, I love The Incredibles and Brad Bird’s other Pixar film, Ratatouille, primarily for that reason. He is not a man who thinks animation is just for the family. Is The Incredibles appropriate for all ages: sure. Was it written only to be fun for kids: no. There is a very well done and very adult script driving this film.

Seriously watch this movie if you haven't seen it already. One of the best from the Golden Age of Pixar. — Seriously watch this movie if you haven’t seen it already. One of the best from the Golden Age of Pixar. Seriously, why is *Finding Nemo* getting a sequel before this?

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

We're Supposed to Like Him but Why? Grandpa Joe (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory)

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Colin McMahon

So today being a Monday, I decided to start the week with a not-so-serious article and talk about one of my favorite movies growing up. There are few films that convey “pure imagination” like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (I know… I had to use it). The songs, the sets, the characters, the candy: I love this movie. In my opinion there are few cinematic portrayals that rival Gene Wilder’s enchanting yet haunting Willy Wonka. It’s a performance that is right up there with Anthony Hopkins’ Hannibal Lecter, Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow and Heath Ledger’s Joker. But I’m not writing here today to talk about Wilder or the Oompa Loompas or anything so magical. Let’s instead talk about Grandpa Joe.

For any who haven’t seen this movie in a while, Grandpa Joe is one of four elderly invalids living with protagonist Charlie and his mother. It is established right away that this is not a financially secure household. The place is very tiny with all four grandparents having to share one bed. Their poverty is further established by the fact that Charlie, despite his young age, works a job while the other kids play and sing songs with candy vendors. In addition, when Charlie gets his pay raise and spends it on a loaf of bread, his mother refers to the food as “a banquet”. Yeah, he get the idea that the belts are tightened with his family.

This is good character development for Charlie as it establishes him as both responsible and selfless, despite his young age. He didn’t spend any of his hard earned money on candy, no matter how catchy the opening song. No instead he goes home and buys food for his family. In addition, he nobly volunteers to support his Grandpa Joe’s tobacco cost. Nice kid… let’s talk about Grandpa Joe.

Grandpa Joe lives a boring existence. Every day he lies in a bed, chatting with its three other occupants and watching television. He will also talk to Charlie and his mother if they are available (you know, not working to feed him and let him smoke). Let’s talk about some of the conversation he has with Charlie’s mother, in particular his commentary here: “One of these days I’m going to get out of this bed and help him.” Grandpa Joe is of course referring to Charlie, sympathizing with the protagonist. That’s all well and good but as Charlie’s mother responds: “Dad, in all the years you’ve talked about getting out of that bed, I have yet to see you set foot on the ground.” Guess what the response here is: “Well maybe if the floor wasn’t so cold.”

Yep, it’s that damn floor. Ruins so many plans doesn’t it? Here is tiny Charlie, a kid matured passed his age into supporting his family and why? Because that accursed floor holds Grandpa Joe prisoner, preventing him from, you know, being a responsible adult and supporting his family… or at least supporting his own tobacco habits. I never liked the character of Grandpa Joe and I didn’t get why the movie wanted to present him as a good guy. Certainly Charlie loves him but Charlie is a young and naive kid. We’re taught to think all the other kids that go with Charlie to the chocolate factory are horrible, wicked people that get what they deserve but what about Grandpa Joe? Seriously? Those kids may have been jerks but they were like eight. What’s his excuse?

Other reasons why Grandpa Joe cannot leave the bed: the liberal media, violent video games, Barack Obama's socialist policies. — Other reasons why Grandpa Joe cannot leave the bed: the liberal media, violent video games, Barack Obama’s socialist policies.

So Grandpa Joe, despite loving Charlie and sympathizing deeply with his plight, cannot be moved to help. He’s old damn it! Now maybe I’m being harsh. The film appears to establish Grandpa Joe as unable to leave the bed. Sure he has a fighting spirit, but that cannot overcome old age and a potentially debilitating condition. Maybe Grandpa Joe really would like nothing more than to spring out of that bed and help Charlie to support his family, he simply no longer possesses the strength. Yeah, I might be being too harsh.

As soon as Charlie wins the last coveted golden ticket, Grandpa Joe is suddenly more limber than Usain Bolt. Where was this energy when his family needed it? Where was that drive when his grandson was delivering papers or his daughter was up late at night washing laundry?

Grandpa Joe doesn’t get better either. Any who have read the book know that the film differs in more than just its name. There is a whole added sequence involving fizzy lifting drinks which is not present in Roald Dahl’s novel. The scene occurs shortly after Violet Beauregarde as transformed into a giant blueberry and wheeled off to whatever fate awaits her. Point is: this scene occurs after children have failed and been kicked out (or worse killed). So Charlie and Grandpa Joe have reason to be on their toes. Now Charlie is a young kid, young kids are eager, impetuous – stupid. Point is, I don’t fault Charlie for wanting to try the fizzy lifting drinks. It shows that he’s human. Without this error, he would look like a young Christ figure (just watch Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to see what I’m talking about).

Now Grandpa Joe is the adult in this situation and the bulk of the responsibility falls to him. AND IT’S HIS IDEA! “Let’s take a drink, Charlie. No one’s watching.” Really? Really Grandpa Joe? This is the man who, not ten minutes prior, called Violet Beauregarde “a nitwit” for not listening to Mr. Wonka. So what does that make him? Did Mr. Wonka say the drinks were okay? No, no he did not. In fact he said the opposite.

I just nearly got my grandson and I killed for fizzy lifting drinks.

And yet, despite this, when Willy Wonka informs Charlie and Grandpa Joe of their failure to keep to the contract (one that Charlie signed without reading at request of Grandpa Joe), it isn’t Charlie who flips his shit. I know that Charlie is supposed to be the protagonist and he’s an awesome one but this movie can be read with a very cynical undertone. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: a story about how an old man uses his grandson to promote his living status. Think about it.

At the beginning of the film, Grandpa Joe is lying in bed and a small rundown home. At the end of the movie, he is essentially co-owner of Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. Did he do anything to deserve this rise in fortunes: nope. Well he cultivated a good relationship with his grandson… although why Charlie listens to him is beyond me. Why he’s not portrayed far more negatively in the movie is beyond me as well; really looking at everything, he is an antagonistic figure.

I feel Grandpa Joe is one of the people that republicans must imagine when they fear unemployment benefits and welfare. Obviously his guy is taking advantage of not just his grandson but the system too. I can only imagine what happened after Charlie took over the chocolate factory and gave Grandpa Joe a job. What if he put him in charge of something important like keeping track of company income? I can only imagine the ordeal ending with: “Sorry Charlie, I know the factory closed but – the floor, it was just too cold to keep a cost efficient budget.”

Well played Grandpa Joe, well played.

Getting real tired of your shit, Grandpa Joe.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.