The British summer as good as it's ever going to be, the Olympics are in full swing, and I am amongst many other graduates who are thousands of pounds in debt. Life definitely has its ups and downs but right now my life seems to have stopped with nothing exciting happening at all. But there is a silver lining- or there will be over the next few months/ entering 2013- and here are the five reasons/ or rather five films that I'm hoping will lift my spirits in the future:
1) The new Tarantino movie, "Django Unchained" (2013):
I've already blogged about the legend of the Django character and it all he represents- and this combined with the quirky directing of Tarantino= exciting.
2) I discovered that Anne Hathaway can actually sing and so it is perfectly okay for her to star in Tom Hooper's adaptation of my favourite musical "Les miserables" (2012):
When I first watched this trailer I became dubious about how the musical was going to be adapted on film as the stage production is so amazing (i've seen it twice and would definitely see it again). Seeing Anne Hathaway in the part of Fantine, singing 'I dreamed a dream', came as a bit of a surprise but after some research into Anne Hathaway's singing abilities I'm confident she'll do a great job of portraying such a broken character. Also, for those worried about the other cast members singing capabilities, keep calm and click here.
3) Leo DiCaprio is not only starring in the upcoming "Django Unchained" but he's also portraying F. Scott Fritzgerald's famous Jay Gatsby character in Baz Luhrmann adaptation of the famous novel, "The Great Gatsby" (2012) alongside Carey Mulligan and Isla Fisher:
DiCaprio has indeed been a busy bee. But there is a downside to this film, mainly due to Tobey Maguire just being in the film. Apart from that blip the trailer looks promising and Luhrmann seems to have captured the roaring twenties decadence in his own style and looking nothing like the previous release of the story in 1974 with Mia Farrow and Robert Redford.
4) There is the prospect of Keira Knightley winning an Oscar this year with Joe Wright's "Anna Karenina" (2012):
Although I find Kinghtley's constant pouting in her films terribly annoying, and that added onto the fact that she has starred in a film this year with the unfunny Steve Carrell in "Seeking a friend for the end of the world" 2012 (which I haven't seen yet but it has received mixed reviews) means that my admiration for Knightley wavers. However the trailer for "Anna Karenina" (2012) intrigues me and although I haven't read Tolstoy's novel, yet I believe it is going to be an exceptional adaptation from the speculation around this film. Moreover critics have stated that this is going to be one of Knightly's less stiff performances so lets hope its done with a little less pouting.
5) Finally, the last reason I'm continue to look forward to the future of film and probably the most bizarre reason, is going to see James Franco becoming the Wizard of Oz. Seriously, he portrays the wonderful, maybe not so magical, Wizard and tells the tale about how the wizard came to reside in the emerald city in Sam Raimi's "Oz: The great and powerful" (2013):
Word of warning: the trailer may not appeal to everyone and some people will be doubting the directing ability of Sam Raimi (mainly after "Spiderman 3" (2007) and that awkward dance scene... let's not discuss it again). Moving on, "Oz: The great and Powerful"(2013) is considered to be the prequel to "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) and the film has some great cast members; with the brilliant James Franco who always does a great job in any role he is cast in; Michelle Williams; Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz. What lets the film down is its concept and that could spell disaster for Frank L. Baum's classic tale of Dorothy and her sparkly red shoes, but the broadway musical "Wicked" has been faring pretty well, so let's just hope that Franco can pull off the story of the Wizard.
So there you have it, the release of these five films in the near future are pushing me to continue to power through the post-university blues. Funnily enough, it is ironic that on a blog post where I am looking forward to the future, all the five films that i've mentioned are costume/ period dramas that are set in the past or a fantasy land. In addition 4 out of the 5 films are adaptations of a famous novels with "Django Unchained" taking inspiration from old Spaghetti westerns- thus the influence of classic literature and old film is going to be hard to miss in the upcoming film industry and so, if I haven't already mentioned, I'm bloody excited.
Director: Neil Burger
Script: Leslie Dixon (screenplay), Alan Glynn (novel)
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro, Anna Friel, and Abbie Cornish
When it was originally released, the concept of "Limitless" (2011) did intrigue me, and now, having finally watched the film, I am having trouble remembering why. Here it is:
The trailer draws you in, and combined with Kanye Wests song 'Power' it leaves the viewer willing to spend the extra hundred and two minutes of their time to watch the entire film. In his song, Kanye West states: 'no one man should have all that power', and in "Limitless" Bradley Cooper proves Mr West right as Cooper demonstrates that he should not be given any sort of power, in pill form or otherwise, as he doesn't have a clue how to use it in an entertaining way. The film is based on the techno-thriller novel, "The Dark Fields" by Alan Glynn. Bradley Cooper plays Edward Morra, a struggling writer who is having trouble keeping up with fast paced New York city. He hasn't written a word of his book, he is divorced with an ex-wife and then dumped by his new girlfriend at the start of the film; with no motivation and enthusiasm his life is grey and this is highlighted through the use of blue/grey tint in the frames in the cinematography. After a chance encounter with his ex-brother in law he is introduced to a new drug known as NZT, which he has been led to believe was FDA approved and had passed clinical trials. According to sources, NZT enhances brain usage and allows the user to access information and old memories and extort it to their best advantage. Yes, it sounds all very scientifically plausible. Morra takes the clear pill and his outlook on life changes (along with the cinematography, as the colours in the frame brighten up with warm yellow and orange tones in contrast to the grey). It turns out the pill hasn't been tested at all, and soon Morra becomes addicted. However whilst on NZT, Morra manages to finish his book, get his girlfriend back, learn several languages, and win over various influential people helping him land a high profile job in the stock market. The downside to the drug however is that it can send the brain into overload- so the users memory becomes disconnected and oh... if you do not continue to take the drug you become critically ill and die. The marketing team who spread the word about the film went to great lengths not just to promote the film but they also created a website advertising the drug itself. The website for NZT looks incredibly professional and would definitely succeed in convincing people to buy into the product. If anything, NZT is a reflection of the many drugs that people consume today: there's the cups of coffee providing the energy to wake up in the mornings, the cigarettes to take a de-stresing break in their busy schedules, and the easily accessible paracetamol to reduce the headaches. It is just how the world works nowadays- everyone is unwillingly relying on some sort of drug. This is highlighted in the film by the fact that the pill is clear, giving the impression that anything could be inside it. Nevertheless the (slight) reference to how people fuel their daily lives does not mask the fact that the film itself is lacking in-well- pretty much everything that a decent film requires.
Firstly the narrative is flawed: drugs for an aspiring writer? how original! But then Morra's writing and his novel seem to take a back seat and then he moves into finance. Of course! where else would an aspiring writer go? Granted it is where the money is, but he has all these capabilities with enhanced brain usage and he is in a film where the possibilities are (sorry for saying) limitless and he chooses to go into finance? how dull. The film is very predictable and as the famous saying goes: 'mo money, mo problems', and sure enough Morra is led into trouble. He is being followed by a random killer stalker who seems to lose interest at the end of the film, and at the same time Morra is being chased by a Russian money lender, who also becomes addicted to NZT and begins injecting the drug instead, as it gets into the blood stream faster (side note: if the drug really did enhance brain usage why didn't Morra jump on the injecting bandwagon). For me, however, the most ridiculous part of the film was when Morra has to drink the blood flowing out of the shot moneylenders' body to survive, as the blood contains (aswell as other fluids) NZT in it. Yep it happens, and it makes me cringe inside.
The films flawed story line is not the only reason why the film doesn't deliver. Bradley Coopers acting leaves a lot to be desired. From the concept of the film I imagine him to be a cross between a drug fuelled Hunter S. Thomson character and slick Christian Bale in "American Psycho" (2000). Cooper was neither and overall rather bland as a character; he is boring on and off the drug and is really lacking in character definition making it hard for the viewer to form an opinion and like him. The script is not witty (in the slightest) and lacked the sophisticated 'hard' edge that the film seems to desperately seek. For other ways in which "Limitless" is flawed click here. Finally, and possibly the defining moment in which I decided there was no way I could enjoy the film ever again, was when Bradley Cooper talks down to Robert De Niro. Please. How ridiculous is that? So for a film with a drug that claims to boast a 'recipe for grandeur' it falls short on its promise and doesn't offer a "sparkling cocktail of useful information" as Cooper claims it does in the film.
Verdict: Disappointing. Maybe watch, if you've literally got absolutely not-a-thing to do with your life.
The other week, whilst visiting my family in Rome, I watched one of my favourite films: "Sabrina" (1954) with Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart. I couldn't help thinking how much more I preferred the 1954 version better than the remake in 1995 with Harrison Ford and Julia Ormond- probably because Audrey Hepburn and Bogart just ooze class and are on different levels from Ford and Ormond, but also I am always weary of remakes of films and songs etc and have always believed that the original is the best. So, with the recent release of "The amazing Spiderman" (2012) so close to the Sam Raimi version with Tobey Maguire and Kristen Dunst, it got me thinking about how fast the turnover of similar, or a exact reproduction of the same film is distributed to the public. One benefit of these 'copies' (as they can be called I suppose) is that the audience get to see the different ways that various directors and producers adapt the same narrative. Who knows...maybe Andrew Garfield, the new Spiderman, embodies the role of the well known superhero much better than Tobey Maguire. I haven't seen the film and so am yet to judge.
Moving on, talking about remakes, the other week I watched the critically acclaimed "High Society" (1956). Safe to say, there could hardly be any room for error with Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Grace Kelly and Louis Armstrong as the cast members. But as the film progressed, I slowly realised that I recognised the story, almost word for word: an upper class woman, who had been previously married to a childhood friend, about to be remarried to a self-made man, and a journalist and photographer who are both trying to get-the-scoop on the wealthy socialites wedding. After some searching it came to me, "High Society" was a remake of "The Philadelphia story" (1940), another favourite, starring Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant.
"The Philadelphia story" (1940), directed by George Cukor, is based on the broadway play written by Philip Barry. Barry originally wrote the main character, the socialite Tracey Lord, for Katherine Hepburn herself and the role suits her perfectly. The film is a classic example of the screwball comedy of the 30s and 40s. The film proves once again that the Katharine Hepburn-Grant duo can not be separated on the silver screen; not even by the charming James Stewart who plays the journalist, Macaulay Collins, who also falls in love with the socialite. Stewart uses fiery poetry to try to enchant Hepburn in the scene below:
"High Society" is the musical version of Barry's play and "The Philadelphia story", directed by Charles Waters. The film incorporates the popular songs of Cole Porter, such as "Well, did you evah! (what a swell party this is)" and "Who wants to be a millionaire?"sung by the cast members. In addition, the actors endorse the elegant fashion in the same way as the characters in "The Philadelphia story", but one can see the shift in iconic style from the 40s to the 50s- not just in the fashion but also in the grandeur of the mansions. There are some critics who claim that Grace Kelly mimicks Katherine Hepburns' take on the character far too much; but Grace Kelly, coming from a high society background herself, knows very well the airs and graces of a woman with money. A scene from "High Society" is shown in the clip below. Frank Sinatra plays the same character that James Stewart played in "The Philadelphia story". Instead of poetry, Sinatra uses his voice to sing the bewitching "You're sensational" to win Kelly over:
Both scenes are well performed and directed in their own right. Watching both films, it is clear that Charles Waters took Philip Barrys' narrative and added his own touches to this fantastic love story- that has been (and still is) repeated and/or adapted in the rom-coms of today. In addition "High Society" was Grace Kellys' final film before she became the Princess of Monaco, and this also added to the films success. Both films were distributed by MGM but, unlike the two productions of "Sabrina" where I could clearly distinguish which version I preferred, it seems to be more difficult to choose a favourite between "The philadelphia story" and "High Society". Using just the two scenes above it seems to be a choice between James Stewart reciting poetry and Sinatra admiring you and calling you 'sensational'- and I can't seem to choose! With both films being alluring for different reasons it becomes clear why they were advertised as two separate films in the first place.
The commercial success of "The Philadelphia story" and "High Society" highlights why producers and directors will continue to remake films with the same narrative- and it's not only because they can take money from a new generation who might not have heard of the original story. Narratives can be restyled and refreshed by adding different musical scores, lines adjusted by new witty scripts and changing the lineup with current celebrities of the time, not to mention improved graphics with new technology. Thus who knows...maybe fans of the old Spiderman movies will also become fans of the new "The amazing Spiderman" (2012) and appreciate both films in their own right; after all, it's just a bit of history repeating.
Well, according to the Finnish director Tino Vuorensola there are Nazis in space. His new film, "Iron Sky" (2012) is about a group of Nazis who have been living for more than 70 years on the moon, more specifically the 'dark side of the moon,' having escaped the crumbling Third Reich after 1945 and by 2018 they have built the Fourth Reich, a secret space centre, and they are planning to invade earth. So...what is to be done with a film that concerns Space Nazis, was primarily funded by a group of fans and refused to be distributed in many UK cinemas? Watch it, of course. I went into this film with an open mind and with the general attitutde I maintain towards most films (albeit for this film I was more dubious than usual). Nevertheless I was quite surprised and I have an inckling that "Iron Sky" is set to become a cult classic.
What does "Iron Sky" have to offer? It appears to be a genre mish-mash of sci-fi, comedy, a war epic and in a strange way, it's also a political satire. The film begins with American astronauts landing on the moon and discovering a Nazi space base. One of them, James Washington, is captured by the Nazis and used for experiments by a scientist strangely resembling Eienstein. Using Washington's (very technologically advanced) mobile phone the Nazi scientist manages to generate enough power to get the engines of the spaceship working. Therefore the major general, Klaus Adler, decides to make a trip to earth on a secret takeover mission. The teacher to the young Space Nazis about earth, Renete Richer, travels to earth for a different reason- to spread peace. She believes that Chaplin's famous film "The great dictator" (1940) is a short film about Nazi ideology spreading throughout the world (through the globe scene) and that the swastika is a symbol of peace. Washington eventually shows her the real truth about the National Socialist Party. The American President, who does indeed strongly resemble Sarah Palin, discovers Klaus Adler's takeover plan and declares war; because after all, any American President who starts a war in their first term gets re-elected (as the film points out). In the end, a somewhat natural order is restored (which ever way that can be taken in a film as bizarre as this). Parts of the film are not very polished with its overuse of stereotypes and cliché lines like 'take me to your leader,' but when all comes to pass I'm all for Charlie Chaplin's "The great dictator" (1940) still being appreciated in 2018.
'Nazis in space! what the f*** is this?' But surprisingly the concept is not as far fetched as it seems- in the sense that other people have thought about Space Nazis before Vurensola's film release rather than it's a widely acknowledged fact, obviously (I'm not crazy, I swear). What is an accepted fact is Operation Paperclip- an American led project after WWII where over 700 Nazi scientists were employed by the American goverment in order to win the race against the Soviet Union and gain access to the Nazis techonological secrets. In 1930s German scientists began the 'Amerika Bomber' project where they would develop a suborbital bomber spacecraft known as Silbervogel (aka 'silver bird') to drop bombs on New York City. The design never materialized but after the war the forward thinking Nazi scientists designing these technologies were highly sought after for their advanced research. In the meantime, Robert A. Heinlein, in 1947, published 'Rocket Ship Galileo'; a science fiction novel regarding three American teenagers who travel to the moon only to find Nazis residing there. More recently, and perhaps, one of the more influential ideas came from Richard C. Hoagland- a man who in a recent radio transmission stated that he believed Obama cancelled the Lunar Program because he was warned by none other than the Space Nazi's themselves: "there's a war going on upstairs" he states, 'a Space Nazi civil war'. So it seems Space Nazi's have been suspected for a while.
However, if there is one thing this film advertises is the increasing popularity in using crowdfunding and crowdsourcing for Independent directors who do not have a Hollywood Budget. The film, which is a co-production between Finland, Germany and Australia was funded through sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo which handle fund-raising and then OpenIndie helps find and build audiences. This method of raising funds is becoming increasingly popular in the UK and Europe but is still illegal in the US. For “Iron Sky” the budget was around €7.5m, and although the fans may have payed a huge chunk of this, Mr Vuorensola was still determined to have the last word in regards to the film as he states: "this has nothing to do with democracy...this is a pure dictatorship." One bonus for the fans is that through Vuorensola's website (wreckamovie.com) they can request screenings in their area in advance, and help with with given tasks such as recording the background audio or design graphics work. The overall importance of crowdfunding is that it helps build a dedicated fan base for the films release and I believe it will become a popular method of raising support for many 'indie' films made in future years. "Iron Sky" will continue to accumulate fans, as using Nazi representations in films will always attract an audience. There are two reasons for this: firstly people feel guilty about the whole ordeal and want to try and understand why it happened and secondly Nazis represent pure evil so brilliantly it's always compelling to watch. I am not suggesting that this film will be for everyone, but with an average of three out of five stars on film rating sites such as imdb and rotten tomatoes it's definitelywatchable, and effectively demonstrates how to stretch a budget. Thus, I leave you with the trailer:
...Rock on out, Janis Joplin would say. As my academic ambitions slowly crumble to pieces, going to see "Rock of ages" (2012) was not the disappointing experience I had originally anticipated. I am a lover of music (a classic-rock fan at heart, give me Led Zeppelin anytime) and a lover of musicals but I am not really into 80s Power Ballads by bands like Poison, Foreigner and Journey, and so was fully prepared to give a negative review of this jukebox musical screen adaptation. Yet, the film as a whole was surprisingly uplifting, even though the narrative suggests that if life is not going the way you've planned become a stripper (which to be fair it's better than going home).
The concept of the film is from the musical of the same name on West End and Broadway. Set in 1987, it tells the story of young Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) who travels from a small town to L.A to pursue her dreams. After her suitcase is stolen she meets Drew Boley (Diego Boneta), an aspiring rock star who is currently working at the notorious Bourbon club on Sunset strip owned by Denis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and his partner Lonny (Russell Brand). Drew manages to get Sherrie a job but things turn sour when Sherrie meets rocker and sex symbol, Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise) and her and Drew split. Drew starts to follow what he believes is a path to fame, led by money-hungry manager, Paul Gill (Paul Giamatti), and he is forced to turn to pop music whilst Sherrie quits Bourbon and is taken in by strip club manager, Justice Charlier (Mary J. Blige). All the while Denis Dupree is worried about the Bourbon club going out of business, Stacee Jaxx is having an identity crisis and the mayors wife, Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is trying to ban metal (with a personal vendetta against Stacee Jaxx). In the end everything works out, the Bourbon survives, Whitmore gets converted to Rock music, and Sherrie and Drew make their dreams come true. Critics cannot comment on the finale of the film as it is hardly surprising; the film is made up of standard musical ingredients, which don't bake an interesting, luxury, à la carte dessert, but nevertheless the public will continue to eat up musical films- like they are a classic victoria sponge.
Admittedly when the film opened with a mix of 'Sister Christian/ Just like paradise/ Nothin' but a good time', I did wince. Its beginning, however, lets you know what's in store and either you accept this or you spend the duration of the film trying (but probably failing) to hate it. In addition, being directed by Adam Shankman, who has previously directed "Hairspray" (2007) and two episodes of "Glee", one knows that the film is hardly going to be 'edgy.' The film has comic moments and undoubtedly Tom Cruise loved playing an arrogant rock god due to his somewhat egotistical nature and is probably currently basking in the critics referral to the film as 'Tom's movie'; but the films awful reviews in The New York Times and The Guardian are really undeserved. The film is not trying to move away from the Hollywood formula and be 'edgy'- as firstly where would Hollywood be without it's adaptations of stage productions and secondly Heavy Metal was pretty mainstream at the time anyway. The film as a whole reminds me of the heavy metal revivalists Steel Panther, who do not take themselves seriously at all, so critics please stop being so depressing. The only thing I'm praying for is that Journeys song "Don't stop believing" doesn't make it back into the charts for a second time in the last ten years.
Some critics have said that the film is an insult to rock music but in my opinion the glam metal, hair bands of the 1980s were nothing but flamboyant and cheesy. The film definitely embodies this, thus the genre cannot be offended. In retrospect the glam metal fans of the 80s are a reflection of the Indie posers of the noughties (both genres are played in the so called 'cheese' rooms in clubs everywhere). Someday a film about the Indie genre will probably be produced and will claim that the genre reflected a generation (even though shit Indie songs, which all sound the same, are my personal nightmare). Let's face it, by 1987 the days of the 'true' rock and roll lifestyle that came out of the 1960s were coming to an end, and the eighties and nineties were a time when people were realising the damaging effects of a drug and alcohol induced lifestyle alongside a rising concern of AIDS/ HIV that began to grab media attention. This film manages to brush past these problems, and does not pretend to be anything more than what it sets out to do: entertain. The costumes are great and everyone is overstyled, the majority of the audience will know the music (even if you try to pretend you don't) and they will tap their feet along with the riffs, and finally, the characters are indeed stereotypical, but in musicals the characters don't need to be complicated- after all the key to a musical is the music, not the narrative. Therefore, continuing in the cheesy fashion of the film, "Rock of Ages" indeed offers 'nothin' but a good time' whether you take the film seriously or with a pinch of salt.
Director: Adam Shankman
Writers: Chris D'Arienzo (musical book), Justin Theroux and Allan Loeb
Starring: Diego Boneto, Julianne Hough, Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Paul Giamatti, Mary J. Blige.
The trailer for "Django Unchained" was released recently. I had to watch the original Django film- Sergio Corbucci's, "Django" (1966)- as part of my degree course and was not expecting to hear the name 'Django' in any form Western again, believing it had been worn out over the years in the many other exploitation films that cashed in on Corbucci's success. Nevertheless, it seems the legend lives on. Here is Tarantino's trailer:
Any trailer for a Tarantino film is bound to be quite ambiguous and reading the criticism around 'Django Unchained' many are questioning whether Tarantino has stretched the boundaries to far in his new project. In my opinion the film is going to be keeping in line with many other of his films that also surpass delicate boundaries; such as the theme of the Holocaust in "Inglorious Bastards" (2009)- and with a star studded cast like Leonardo Di Caprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx, it's set to be a winner at the box office. Anyone who has seen the original 'Django' (1966), or any other Spaghetti westerns for that matter, would know that the genre was famous for competing to produce the most violent film: the amount of violence in the films is one of the aspects that drew audiences to watch westerns in the Spaghetti era- the main question was 'how far can that particular director/ actor/ producer stretch the boundaries?' Even if the viewer is unfamiliar with the Spaghetti western concept they have probably seen a previous Tarantino film and know that he is no stranger to violent scenes.
What intrigues me most, is the films' title. The 'Django' name has been strongly associated with many westerns. Moreover, Tarantino has included Corbucci's original 'Django' actor, Franco Nero, in his film. Here is the 1966 'Django' trailer:
The creation of the Django character was inspired by two predominant sources. The first being Akira Kurosawa’s film "Yojimbo" (1961): a Japanese film that deals with a lone man who enters a town run by two opposing gangs and decides to rid the community of their corruption (this motif is the inspiration behind many other westerns: one man who has no affiliation to any other party but himself, as can be seen in films like Sergio Leone's "A fistful of dollars" (1964)). The second inspiration behind the name, is the jazz guitar player, Django Reinhardt, a Romany gypsy who is commended for incorporating the use of a guitar in jazz music and for proliferating jazz across Europe. When he was young, he was in an accident and was badly burnt, losing the use of several fingers on his left hand. He did not let this accident hinder his guitar playing, and thus he learnt all his guitar solo's using just two fingers. It is evident that Corbucci was inspired by the 'symbolism of hands' in 'Django', especially in the final scene were Django's hands are completely broken and bloody and yet he still manages to shoot his enemy.
"Every cowboy with a gun and a mission was called Django in those days."
Corbucci's Django is man with a mission- he's out to seek revenge on the man who killed Django's wife, the racist Confederate Major Jackson. The actor playing Django, Franco Nero, was only in his early twenties when he made the film and his voice was dubbed to make him sound more mature. As previously stated there have been many films all using the Django name, (or "Sotto-Djangos"- Under Djangos) but there was only one official sequel made where Nero returns to the Django character in "Django strikes again" (1987). Django is not like any other cowboy; he doesn't ride a horse and he drags his coffin around with him in which he carries a huge firing gun to help him defeat his enemies. He has no tie or affiliations to any particular parties and more importantly he can never love another woman ever again, as the lyrics to the theme song suggest:
"Django, have you never loved again?
Love will live on, oh oh oh...
Life must go on, oh oh oh...
For you cannot spend your life regretting."
Critics have further debated whether the theme Tarantino has chosen, the 'union-soldiers-raped-and-killed-my-wife-now-I'm-out-for-revenge' motif, is outdated. Also, if Tarantino is going to 'avoid the realms of bad taste' and whether he'll be able to handle the delicate issues he has laid out for the film- well it depends on what people find bad taste. The original Django is rife with explicit racism against Mexicans, prostitutes (the exploitation of women in general), civil war resentment, and the infamous violent ear slicing scene. Using the term 'blaxploitation' to categorise the film is slightly risky, just because Jamie Foxx is Django and the
representation of the slave trade- but anyone who
knows Tarantino's style will know that his films are not famous for
their historical accuracy and for always twisting the outdated themes of revenge, love and honour.
Exploitation films were never made to be taken seriously- they were made on cheap budgets,
with unknown actors and really bad dubbing and special effects- yet they
are a film niche in their own right taking on a variety of genres such
as the Western, Horror and Comedy and they were made in their hundreds- thus the narratives of the films were not important at all and their scripts were weak. In this case, it is clear from the "Django Unchained" trailer that the only thing in common between this film and Corbucci's original classic is perhaps the quest for revenge on a man for killing/taking Django's wife. It is bound to be the strong reputation of the 'Django' persona and all he represents that drew Tarantino to make his own homage to the name but not necessarily the same story. The main questions that need to be asked are not about whether the film will achieve success (no doubt it will gather an audience being promoted as the 'New Tarantino') but where to place this film on the endless Django films list? and more importantly will Jamie Foxx manage to pull off this iconic character? ...hmm to answer them I guess one just has to wait till Christmas.
Fairy tales were not originally written for children, and although the Disney classics seem to dominate the fairy tale domain, it is only recently that directors and animators seem to be exploring the twisted side to them: think of the creepy bedtime story narrated by the Oscar nominated Granny O'Grimm. Like any other child, I loved watching Disney's heroic tales of restoring princesses to their rightful place, getting rid of evil step parents, being rescued by a dashing young prince charming and ending up living happily ever after in a beautiful castle. In today's world, where happy endings are for dreamers and castles are overpriced, it is interesting to go back to these stories as an adult and somewhat satisfying to learn that these 'princesses' were not as lucky as Disney has led us to believe.
"The realm of
fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of
beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty
that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp
as swords. In that realm a man may, perhaps, count himself fortunate to have
wandered, but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveller
who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too
many questions, lest the gates should be shut and the keys be lost."
~J. R. R. Tolkien in 'On Fairy Stories'
'Snow White swallows the poisoned apple'
Paula Rego
There have been two new Snow White films released this year. Snow White is one of the darkest fairy tales: with murderous rivalry, adolescent sexual ripening, poisoned gifts, bloodshed, witchcraft, and ritual cannibalism. So Snow White has probably stopped dreaming that 'some day her prince will come' but has ended up rather like the distressing painting by Paula Rego (right). The author, Terri Windling, gives a very good overview of the various versions of the Snow White tale in her article: Snow, Glass, Apples: The story of Snow White. I have taken a look at different Snow White films over the years, and will compare the actresses who have taken on the roles of Snow White to see who rules fairest of them all.
"Snow White" (1916)
The 1916 version of the 'Snow White' tale was directed by J. Searle Dawley and based on a script written for the stage by Wintrop Ames. Below the two minute youtube clip gives the perfect impression of the actress who played Snow White, Marguerite Clark.
Clark was thirty-three years old when she did this film. Surprisingly, the majority of her films and on stage performances where done in her thirties, which is very unusual compared to the age 'limit' that Hollywood portrays today (Charlize Theron is thirty-six and playing the evil old Queen in 'Snow White and the Huntsmen'). Although the cinematography is slightly lacking, and it's set up leans more towards a stage production, Clark gives the Snow White character a personality which is very vibrant and youthful.
The look of intrigue on her face when she is peering through the hole in the front door of the cottage is captivating and she has this innocence about her which is very endearing thus making her a beautiful Snow White-but consequently she is more of a damsel in distress than a fighting warrior. Walt Disney was a massive fan of this version and he used elements of it in his first full length animation "Snow White and the seven dwarfs" (1937) . One can easily see the similarities between the Disney Snow White caricature and Marguerite Clark.
Roland C. Crandall's "Snow White" (1933)
It would seem ludicrous not to mention a cartoon version of Snow White in this post. So here's Roland C. Crandall's short animation with Betty Boop as "Snow White" (1933) and music by Cab Calloway.
This cartoon took Crandall six months to complete by himself and is considered to be a masterpiece. The voice of Betty, Mae Questel, is very childlike with the mispronouncing of words and squeaky voice. The character of Betty Boop however is a far cry from the 'innocent' child. Her character was based on the flappers of the 1920s mainly with the voice of Helen Kane (especially in her song "I wanna be loved by you") and wide-eyed, carefree, "it" girl, Clara Bow.
In this film (made before the production code of 1934 was enforced) Betty is wearing her classic, very short, black dress and a suspender on her upper thigh (which slips off at some point). Visually, her character is overtly sexual, a far cry from the childish demeanour of Marguerite Clark. However her narrative says something different: "Always in the way, I can never play" she cries out like a damsel in distress, to which the guards reply "what a shame! Poor Betty!" and throw away the axe. Once again Betty Boop is not a fighter and ends up getting trapped in a ball of snow creating her own avalanche which leads to her being trapped in a glass coffin. In the end she is rescued by her Prince Charming (Koko the Clown).
The evil Queen stepmother resembles the character Olive Oyl (from "Popeye") and she transforms into several different objects throughout the animation: the best, in my opinion, is when her eyes turn into two fried eggs as she is observing Betty's beauty. Thus we have, yet again, a damsel in distress, a defeated evil Queen and order restored with a happily ever after.
"Snow White and the Huntsmen" (2012)
Directed by Rupert Sanders. I had to take a break before I got down to writing about this version of the Snow White tale, simply because of my dislike of Kristen Stewart and her inability to portray expression in any film that she does. Nevertheless, it is clear she was chosen precisely because she is the last actress expected to play the beautiful and fair Snow White. Although parts of the script are poorly written (Stewarts' speech to her army is not inspiring whatsoever), the story dips in and out of old versions of the Snow White tale with new twists. The Huntsmen becomes her mentor and the Prince Charming is cast aside. Charlize Theron makes an excellent evil Queen- giving deeper psychological dimensions to the misunderstood character. The viewer sees a glimpse of the Queen's past and why she goes to extreme lengths to preserve her beauty- i suppose the magic holding Theron's character together is a reflection of the copious amount of plastic that makes up Hollywood today- but perhaps Theron goes about retrieving beauty in a more dramatic manner and with better effects. As a whole the film brings to light the darker side to the Snow White story- but with a bland Snow White who sometimes chips in to fight her battle, but with the Huntsmen always close behind.
"Mirror Mirror" (2012)
I was going to dismiss this film, but after watching it I feel it is worthy of comment. Directed by Tarsem Singh, the story is framed by a narrative told by the evil Queen (Julia Roberts). It has some comic lines and Lily Collins is a fun Snow White, defiantly with more spark than Stewart. Julia Roberts as the evil Queen is more sympathetic than Theron and it is clear that this version is a light hearted approach to the tale. Although, presumably, aimed primarily at children it could have taken more risks- even the Disney version is more terrifying. The end is as one expects, but I will not even go into detail about the bizarre Bollywood-esque song at the end of the film. It is witty in parts, for example when Julia Roberts comments on how the name Snow White was the most pretentious name that Snow's parents could have chosen, and the dwarfs are banished bandits who wear stilts to fool their victims into thinking they're giants. The dwarfs (there are seven of them but they have different names to the Disney version- it blows the mind) teach Snow White how to fight for herself but are always ready to defend her along with her prince Charming when things get tough.The use of make-up is what really transforms Collin's into Snow White (with eyelashes and red lipstick). 'It's time to change that fairy-tale ending' is essentially the tag line of the film but yet there is only one real difference between Singh's Snow White and the rest- the fact that Collins' does not take a bite of the poisonous red apple- apart from this all the other elements are present.
Writing this post I have realised that Snow White is not particularly the best princess to represent today's society. She will never be able to
completely fight her own battle; she is just one of those girls-
perceived to be too 'fair' to fight by men and so they either go into
combat for her or wade close behind to lend a (massive) hand and finish
her fight. Therefore who is the fairest Snow White out of the above? In my personal opinion each of them (apart from Stewart, apologies) is worthy of a Snow White title. Scott Meslow mentions many notable Snow White adaptations over the years in The Atlantic online paper of which, I heard that Micheal Cohn's "Snow White: A tale of terror" (1997) is one of the best. So, as Meslow states: "There is always another Snow White around the bend," and each of them is trying to be the fairest of them all.
