Movies – Page 38 – Colin McMahon

History vs. Storytelling: The Monuments Men

Posted on February 19, 2014 by Colin McMahon

At last year’s Academy Awards ceremony, Ben Affleck’s Argo took home “Best Picture”. The film was widely entertaining but had historians and certain former members of government crying foul. I know: a major Hollywood movie not being completely factual – blows my mind too. Anyway, there is a point to keeping historically based movies somewhat similar to the actual events. However, when Affleck defended his film, Argo and the changes he made, one message was obvious: it was his first job to make the movie good. It won “Best Picture” so… Mission Accomplished!

Fast-forward to the present day and George Clooney‘s film, The Monuments Men. Like Argo, Monuments Men is inspired by actual historical events. This film centers on the end of World War II when the Allied Forces (namely the United States of America) sent in art experts to try and save historically famous pieces from the hands of the Nazis. Wow, there really is no better villain than the Nazis: not only were they a genocidal death force but even the paintings weren’t safe. Seriously, is there any area of life where these guys weren’t villainous?

I have never read the book but, from what I've heard, it has similar narrative problems. — I have never read the book but, from what I’ve heard, it has similar narrative problems.

So, in terms of storytelling; there is the fish-out-of-water protagonist(s) – Clooney and his men – entering World War II Europe (great setting) to recover priceless pieces of art in the name of safeguarding both history and culture. That is a great setup. The comedy, the moral questions, the championing of art as a vital piece of mankind to be saved. Problem is: The Monuments Men is not that story.

George Clooney has directed many quality films including Good Night and Good Luck. — George Clooney has directed many quality films including *Good Night, and Good Luck*.

There is great strength in documentary-style storytelling. Experts and eye-witnesses reconstruct events while adding important evidence and insights. This style provides an excellent vehicle to attain the general knowledge of a topic. The Monuments Men is not set up like a documentary. Instead the film plays like flashes-from-life. There is no flow, no constructed story structure of any kind. Scenes simply happen, some humorous, some inspiring, some very tragic. But they all just happen.

Neither Matt Damon or Cate Blanchett feel needed for this film. They spend the majority of the movie on their own, making no significant addition to the story.

The result is there is no way for the audience to easily connect. The film follows nine individuals (Clooney’s team, French Cate Blanchett and a US-German interpreter). That’s a big central cast. Don’t worry: they’re split up most of the film and they’re so interchangeable that it doesn’t really matter. Even George Clooney and Matt Damon disappear for significant stretches so the film never feels like it has any one character to follow. There is a reason why I’m not naming any of the actors in this movie by their character names: there really weren’t any characters.

Never have so many great actors had so little to do.

What is on screen feels accurate to history (I have yet to extensively fact-check the movie so I cannot say for certain). Everything in this film is akin to a World War II highlight real. There’s the shots of the Nazis being evil, the shots of the Russians being antagonistic (but not so much so that they were not part of the Allied Forces), the shots of Europeans resisting Nazi rule, and the shots of men dying for a cause they believe to be greater than themselves.

Ben Affleck’s point now is made valid by this movie. As an audience member, I feel like I learned more about the world, history and human nature from Argo (fictitious attributes aside) than I did from The Monuments Men. Next time George Clooney directs a movie, he had better remember that he is a storyteller first and a historian second.

What Went Wrong With the World War Z Movie

Posted on February 17, 2014 by Colin McMahon

In 2006, Max Brooks published his novel, World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. Granted, there isn’t a high standard out there for zombie literature. When people think of books involving zombies, it’s either World War Z, The Zombie Survival Guide or The Walking Dead (which is a graphic novel series). My point is: standards may be low when it comes to zombie-related reading material. That is not to diminish the writing talents of Max Brooks. Author of both World War Z and the Zombie Survival Guide, Brooks is certainly an accomplished author. While the quantity of notable zombie literature is low; the quality is high. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is an incredible narrative woven together using short stories to tell a surprisingly believable “what if” scenario. The Zombie genre may be over-bloated with material but trust me: this book is worth checking out, it’s fame is well-deserved.

If you haven't read it yet: check it out. — If you haven’t read it yet: check it out.

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War was so successful that there was actually a bidding war for the film rights. Two companies, Appian Way (owned by Leonardo DiCaprio) and Plan B Entertainment (owned by Brad Pitt) vied for the film rights. At this point: it’s pretty easy to tell who won. For Pitt, it was a personal project that he wanted to do for his children, who were enormous fans of the zombie genre and of the book… so what happened?

Those out there who have read the novel and seen the adaptation already know: the movie is not the book… not even a little bit. They both have zombies in them and involve Israel, I’m being honest when I say that the comparison ends there. To give World War Z an equivalent as an adaptation, I would look to the 1998 version of Godzilla. Both adaptations make sparse use of their source material, opting instead to go with something more generic and easily marketable. In my opinion: this adaptation technique didn’t work (in either case) and crippled what could have been powerful film-making.

I had yet to read the book when I saw the trailer but even then I knew that changes had been made. The zombies weren't supposed to be running. — I had yet to read the book when I saw the trailer but even then I knew that changes had been made. The zombies weren’t supposed to be running.

But I digress, I do not wish to review World War Z. Plenty of critics have already done that. Simply saying I did not care for the film is enough. Let’s instead discuss how a passion product for Brad Pitt became a film that could have easily gone by any other, zombie-related, title.

After Plan B secured the rights to film adaptation, Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski was hired to write the screenplay. He did, two drafts of it apparently. For any out there very curious, here is the second draft of that script. This screenplay was close to the book but deviated in a few areas. Certain locations (like the battle of Yonkers) were altered and the focus shifted slightly for the triumphant spirit of humanity to who was to blame for the zombie outbreak (hint: George W. Bush).

Max Brooks never had any say in the film version of his novel but expressed approval at Straczynski’s work. However, Studios weren’t convinced and the film hit problems. Matthew Michael Carnahan was brought in to make script rewrites and Paramount (the studio who had initially agreed to distribute the film) looked for a partner to share in the costs.

Certain actors increase profits. Brad Pitt increases profits. Brad Pitt with beautiful hair: millions.

No second studio ever entered the picture but with Brad Pitt confirmed to star, Paramount funded the product anyway. Filming began in July 2011 and ended by 2012… only to start again. The reason: the ending. The original ending of World War Z has never been seen but has been revealed. Considerably darker and more open-ended (the War is far from over in the original draft), Studios feared that the original ending would not be well received.

The "camouflage" ending was an invention of cinema. As Brooks wrote many times in his novel: there was no easy way out. — The “camouflage” ending was an invention of cinema. As Brooks wrote many times in his novel: there was no easy way out.

Damon Lindelof and Drew Goddard (both of Lost fame) were brought in to completely rewrite the film’s third act. The result was that production had to resume and nearly forty minutes of new material was shot. The ending was re-envisioned to be more hopeful and action-oriented, better appealing to the summer blockbuster crowd. Various political subtexts were also toned down to make the film more approachable.

In regards to art, there is a belief that I hold: art for everyone is art for no one. What I mean by this is that when you try to alter something to make it please the masses, you inevitably lose what was unique about that piece in the first place. There is no piece of work created by any human being that has ever fully appealed to everyone.

More accessible meant more merchandising. Because everyone likes toys.

That being said, I cannot claim World War Z a complete failure: the studio succeeded in their goal. Despite going over budget (125 million became 190 million), World War Z went to gross over $540 million worldwide. Enough success to warrant a sequel and be a surprise financial hit in 2013.

So mission accomplished… I just don’t agree with the mission. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is not a novel for everyone. It is dark and brutal and realistic while still being fantastical (it reads like a war history… against an undead opponent who eats people). While action occurs, it isn’t the focus. So those out there wanting mindless entertainment would be disappointed in it because the novel is simply too smart. It forces the reader to think and question aspects of humanity. It is depressing and uplifting and many emotions in between. The film was a product, a predictable outcome after so many complications. The novel was art. There’s the difference. There’s where they went wrong.

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.