Monday, June 9, 2014

FORMATIVE FILM 1: DISNEY'S TRILOGY OF TRAUMA


An autobiography in films; some personal milestones and revelations, for better and/or worse, in relation to movies I’ve seen.

By BRAD WEISMANN

Prologue: Why movies? Well, they stick in my head. I can’t remember the names of close relatives, but I can remember who played Blinky in “The Killers” (Jeff Corey, the marvelous actor who became one of the great L.A. acting teachers after being blacklisted in the 1950s, who also played Tom Cheney in the original “True Grit,” and Plasus the High Adviser in the “Cloud Minders” episode of the original “Star Trek” series – “You will dig the xenite!” – not to be confused with the similar-looking John Marley, who played Jane Fonda’s dad in “Cat Ballou,” Richard in “Faces,” and Jack Woltz, the director who gets his horse’s head in his bed in “The Godfather.” See what I mean?).

Even though I trained in theater, made comedy my business for years and journalism for more years, love Shakespeare, poetry, art, opera, classical music, and jazz, there’s nothing quite like film to mark my memory. I have been known to walk out of a film and act and talk like the characters in it for hours at a time, overstimulated to the point of being sleepless. I am some kind of weird living litmus paper.

My tentative list of significant films is creeping up on 50 now, and will probably grow the more I think about it. What will follow is an account of these vivid experiences in the context of my personal life. Hopefully, there will be some insights and a few laughs.

PART 1: DISNEY’S TRILOGY OF TRAUMA


Pinocchio
Re-release date: Jan. 18, 1962 (Original release date: Feb. 23, 1940)
Dir: Norman Ferguson, Thornton Hee, Wilfred Jackson, Jack Kinney, Hamilton Luske, Bill Roberts, Ben Sharpsteen
Prod: Walt Disney
Scr: Ted Sears, Otto Englander, Webb Smith, William Cottrell, Joseph Sabo, Erdman Penner, Aurelius Battaglia, Bill Peet
Phot: N/A


Mary Poppins
Release date: Aug. 29, 1964
Dir: Robert Stevenson
Prod: Walt Disney, Bill Walsh
Scr: Bill Walsh, Don DaGradi
Phot: Edward Colman


Bambi
Re-release date: March 25, 1966 (Original release date: Aug. 14, 1942)
Dir: James Algar, Samuel Armstrong, David Hand, Graham Heid, Bill Roberts, Paul Satterfield, Norman Wright
Prod: Walt Disney
Scr: Perce Pearce, Larry Morey, Vernon Stallings, Mel Shaw, Carl Fallberg, Chuck Couch, Ralph Wright
Phot: N/A

Heaven and hell. Simultaneously.

You know, Mom, why don’t you make my very first contact with cinema memorable. Take me to the most intense iterations of the moving picture experience human ever made – the most visually arresting, addictive, mind-blowing kind of kinescopically psychedelically dank flicks mankind has ever conceived and executed.

Are we talking the works of Bunuel here? Herschell Gordon Lewis? Tod Browning? Ken Russell? Lucio Fulci? “The Exorcist”? “Last House on the Left”? “In the Mouth of Madness”? No.

Oh, and fill them with highly questionable material for children – including the murder of parents by unseen forces, uncontrolled and hellish physical transformation, children who are neglected, then abandoned, death, catastrophic fires, floods, consumption by enormous mammals . . . and Dick van Dyke’s terrifying Cockney accent.


Of course, we are talking Disney films.

Oh, and make sure they are thought of as family classics, canonical masterpieces that must be transmitted from generation to generation to the end of time.

The source of my fascination with, fear of, and struggle to dominate via analyzing film comes from these initial exposures.

Not that I’m ungrateful.

However, you would have done just as well by filling me as a toddler with lysergic acid diethalymide and strapping me to a roller coaster for three and a half hours straight, in terms of my present mental stability.

Of course, children’s stories, the ones that Disney magic are usually wrought from, are not saccharine idylls. They are, and are meant to, be memorably riveting, tough-minded, and transformative. Bruno Bettelheim’s great book “The Uses of Enchantment” is a great place to begin unraveling the coded messages nursery stories deliver.

Growing up in a family with a Scandinavian, Protestant background, it was natural that my first reading would be of material such as that crafted by the perverse and death-obsessed Hans Christian Andersen (tongues cut out, feet hacked off, dying match girls and other children, and The Girl Who Trod on a Loaf, who gets dragged down into something like hell for a very, very, very long time and escapes only by becoming a bird -- that flies into the sun?) And don’t get me started on the Brothers Grimm – anyone who’s read the top-notch and forthright Ralph Mannheim translation of those folk tales will find incest, cannibalism, mutilation, infanticide, and such! How jolly!

"The Red Shoes": Of course, an angel cuts her feet off, 'cause she can't stop dancin'!
But, of course, it’s the sanitized Victorian-era versions of these stories that inspired Disney and most American adaptations of these stories. Yet to the disturbing undertones already there, Disney adds elements such as a Puritan glee in shame (Pinocchio’s shame at his not-quite-real status) and punishing forbidden behavior (the Cronenbergian transformation of bad boys into donkeys later in the film).


“Mary Poppins” is about the redemption of uncaring parents, of course (at least the film is) – but all I seem to recall is horror – at the neglect of the kids, the wind that blows the mean nannies away (I mean, they had to earn a living, didn’t they?), at the toys putting themselves away in the children’s rooms, at Jane and Michael chased through the dark streets of the East End. And in retrospect, wasn’t there something druggy about the whole production? A “spoonful of sugar” helps things get done quickly? Something that makes you laugh and float to the ceiling? JUMPING INTO A PAINTING? Cocaine, pot, and acid, all right there.


Aaaand “Bambi.” Witnessing the murder of Bambi’s mom was pretty much much the defining moment of my childhood. What’s worse, it was a death blow from an invisible enemy – Disney originally planned to show the human hunter firing his rifle at her, but the canny producer didn’t want to alienate the hunting lobby (it still complained). What results is even more disturbing – cause divorced from effect, leaving me riddled with anxiety. Same thing with the climactic forest fire at the end – an insane inferno, punctuated with a pack of murderous hunting dogs, that I’m pretty sure made me pee my pants.



Behind all this celluloid child abuse was the thought that Man was to blame, not to be trusted. I took it to heart, and haven’t really trusted the species since.

In sharp contrast with the calculatedly traumatic elements are the even more traumatic sentimental elements. The bipolar contrast between death and the babyish cuteness that serves less as a balance than as a teeter-totter corrective to the tragic thrust of the narrative was repellent to me. Lisping baby animals – whimsical figurines – condescending glee. Kids can smell cognitive dissonance, and this stuff stank. The earlier feature-length Disney films are rife with this kind of problematic sentiment and aggressive fantasy – the heart-rending “Baby Mine” number in “Dumbo,” as well as the frightening “Pink Elephants on Parade,” and the insanely overused “shoot-the-dog” trope originated in “Old Yeller.”


The true devilment of course it that all three of these films are so vivid, so technically proficient, smoothly and candy-colored surreal. The triumph of image over idea in the Disney canon means that whatever text, subtext, or overtone is present in the material presented is volatile – a hot substance that floods into every nook and cranny of the recipient, unmediated unless you are a cynical little bastard like me. And not even then.

Later, as the Disney affect flattened and became more predictable, the severity of the attack on the senses diminished, losing its punch as the Disney output lost popularity. It wasn’t until genius abilities of producers such as Ron Clements, John Musker, Don Hahn, Bonnie Arnold, and Pam Coats to mastermind projects that offered real emotion, plausible redemption plots, actual humorous humor, combined with the wonderful Mencken/Ashman songs that triggered a revival in film songwriting, that the ship righted. But even then, they still killed an awful lot of critters.

In retrospect, exposing me to the cinematic crack pipe of Golden Age Walt Disney was the strongest kind of inoculation against manipulation through popular art that one could devise, short of what Mark Lewis’ dad did to him in “Peeping Tom.” And look how that turned out.

Next time: "The Toy that Grew Up" and foreign films on public TV

Thursday, May 29, 2014

‘Million Dollar Arm’: Reality, inspiration, and storytelling

By BRAD WEISMANN

Million Dollar Arm
2014, 120 min.
Dir: Craig Gillespie
Scr: Tom McCarthy
Phot: Gyula Pados

Feel-good story. Triumph over the odds. Underdog wins it all. Bitter central character learns about what’s important in life in the process. Fishes-out-of-water make it in the Big Time. Redemption.

The inspirational sports film of the summer, “Million Dollar Arm,” is out, and it is sappy. And predictable. So what. I like that.


Tom Russo of the Boston Globe points out in a May 24 story, accurately, that facts were altered in some of these “based on a true story” scenarios in order to make with the happy ending.

This formulaic approach has been practically patented by Disney producers Mark Ciardi and Gordon Gray, who to date have turned out “The Rookie,” “Miracle,” “Invincible,” and “Secretariat.” Hey, do you notice a pattern here?





In “Million Dollar Arm,” the central character is not either of the struggling hopefuls (amateur athletes from India, completely unfamiliar with baseball, who seek to become Major League pitchers and win big money), but a canny spots agent – the kind we have been culturally trained to boo. The likeable John Hamm, the only figure on the film’s poster undoubtedly due to his testing well with potential audiences due to his visibility as the central figure of the hit TV series “Mad Men,” is plays the real-life J.B. Bernstein, who created “Million Dollar Arm” as a far-fetched promotional scheme to right his small struggling sports-promotion company’s fortunes.


He goes hunting for candidates across the Subcontinent, with cranky but lovable baseball scout Ray Poitevint (Alan Arkin) in tow. He comes up with Ringku Singh (Suraj Sharma, “Life of Pi”) and Dinesh Patel (Madhur Mittal, “Slumdog Millionaire”). His relentless drive alienates not only his charges, but their trainer Tom House (Bill Paxton), translator Amit (Pitobash, who teeters on the edge of Indian stereotype but pulls himself back), and potential humanizing agent and love interest (Lake Bell). Of course, Bernstein pulls his head out of his ass, becomes a good guy, learns to care, redeems himself and his two players, and secures a chance for a future for them. And gets the woman.

Craig Gillespie’s direction is efficient, and that’s all it needs to be. We are working with a template here, so all we need to do is to stay close to our characters and develop emotional connections to them. It works; I cried several times -- as I always have and will during a Ciardi/Gray production (in fact, a scene of Hamm and Bell tearing up while watching Gary Cooper deliver Lou Gehrig’s “luckiest man” speech in “Pride of the Yankees” points to the ubiquity of the choke-up moment in films such as this).

Those who stick around for the credits will see a wealth of still and film footage of Bernstein and his protégés taken at the time of the original events. It almost seems that “Million Dollar Arm” was conceived with an eye to the post-event creation of a based-on-a-true-story Disney sports film, preferably produced by Ciardi and Gray.

This putative, blatant sculpting and control of a real-time endeavor to serve the marketing scheme of its creator does raise the question of ethics. Did the “real” Bernstein think of this project in terms of Inciting Incident, First Act Break, Midpoint, Point of Commitment, the “All is Lost” Moment,  Climax, and Resolution? Did he sincerely undergo a transformation of character? If he didn’t, is “Million Dollar Arm” a failure? (Bernstein, in fact, didn’t hatch the contest – venture capitalist Will Chang – played by Tzi Ma in the film -- did. Read the complete rundownhere at the excellent ‘History vs. Hollywood’ site.)

I say no. Certain storytelling techniques work because they touch us. They speak some kind of truth about us to ourselves, even if they are fantasies. As Russo points out, the “real” Dinesh Patel has spent his career in Class A ball, and Ringku Singh left the game altogether. Anyone who has survived to child-rearing age knows that there are no fairy-tale endings.

Still, we read our kids fairy tales. Why? Well – who wouldn’t have opted for that big break, or just the experience of giving it your best shot? How is that not an essential virtue to learn, even if it’s retailed to us by the none-too-altruistic? Who doesn’t enjoy feeling that feeling vicariously in the darkened auditorium? We leave the film pumping our fists and feeling triumphant, just as our protagonists do. True, in real life, these perfect moments of redemption don’t last long, and are usually succeeded by difficulty, complexity, loss, regret, and the sheer everydayness of human life.

It doesn’t mean that it’s not a good dream to dream, or a good goal for which to strive. We go to movies like this to remind ourselves that this is so. And I will be watching it and the other inspirational sports films of Ciardi and Gray for some time to come.


Sunday, May 18, 2014

Godzilla: The (Successful) Resurrection


Godzilla
2014, 123 mins.
Dir: Gareth Edwards
Scr: Max Borenstein
Phot: Seamus McGarvey

By BRAD WEISMANN

First of all, I’ve got to say that, in the new Godzilla movie, many of my favorite vacation spots are destroyed. Nonetheless, the new “Godzilla” film is a lot of fun.

It’s a reboot of the classic series, launched in 1954 by Japan’s Toho Studios, featuring the King of the Monsters, that daikaiju with a difference, the radioactive, prehistoric, nuclear-powered menace/savior of the title. The nearly three dozen titles that followed have ranged from thrillingly ridiculous to cutesy-ridiculous to boringly ridiculous, but something about the big green guy appeals to audiences down the decades. The Godzilla oeuvre (‘scuse me) satisfies something in our collective reptile brains. My first kindergarten drawings, lovingly preserved, are a sequential rendering of the original monster’s Tokyo rampage. What raging 5-year-old doesn’t want to level a city?


It’s a winning blend of cautionary fable (Godzilla can be seen as the first really effective nuclear-arms protester), tearjerker (rest assured, families are torn apart, children are threatened, and even the trope of the annoyingly cute Japanese boy in a baseball cap is crowbarred into the new film), disaster film, and all-star wrestling match. Director Edwards and screenwriter Borenstein have obvious soaked up all the past resonances, and the result is something that works for first-timers and old hands as well.

Rather than retail the details, let me establish that the new ‘Zilla is given a credible backstory, and the main action is set up with a sequence that does credit to our paranoia about science run amok. Married scientists Bryan Cranston and Juliette Binoche (why is Binoche rocking an American accent? Discuss) The established undercurrent of unhealed regrets and lost opportunities gives this version a solid, dark feel that is mirrored in McGarvey’s shadowy cinematography and Owen Paterson’s dense, dusty production design.

Fortunately, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, like all the cast of the new "Godzilla," is a past master of the eye-line matching, gape-mouthed stare up into the Effect to be Added in Post.
The scientists’ child, providentially, grows up to be Aaron Taylor-Johnson, a studly Navy lieutenant who can defuse atomic bombs and skydive from 30,000 feet, and happens to be married to Elizabeth Olson. Nice. He’s our surrogate as he’s tossed from Japan across the Pacific to San Francisco, following the radiation-seeking trail of some M.U.T.O.s – massive unknown terrestrial organisms – crazy, evil-looking bat/spider/mantis critters that are solidly in the Toho tradition, complete with EMP-producing tap-dancing power.

Taylor-Johnson is abetted by the always-awesome Ken Watanbe, who plays the Tragic Scientist with a Conscience; Sally Hawkins, pretty much wasted as his Sidekick Scientist Who Helps Explain Stuff; and the massively talented David Strathairn, who never blinks as the Admiral Who Must Make Decisions that Will Impact Millions of Lives. Of course, our foolish armed forces think that nuclear weapons are the answer, not realizing that M.U.T.O.s just LOVE them, wolfing them down like misplaced bikers gobbling canapés at a fancy gallery opening. It’s up to Godzilla to, as Ken tells us, “restore nature’s balance.” Let the battle begin!

Ken Watanbe as Dr. Serizawa -- well, we got trouble, right here in River City!
There’s nothing worse than bad CGI, but it’s artfully imposed here. Enormous pans and crane shots emphasize scale and enhance the gleeful destruction of all we hold dear, including Mission Bay, South Beach, parts of Portoia . . . you can pretty much forget taking the Embarcadero. Ever again. Style-wise, the film owes much to the “Alien” sensibilities of the late R.H. Giger. This is the only other movie I can think of in which an atomic explosion is used as a decorative background effect, “True Lies” being the other.

So go, if you are a monster junkie like me.

One more thought – Cranston, former star of TV’s “Breaking Bad,” risks a quick fade from fame, as do so many who try to make the leap from the small to the big screen. He makes a perfect They-All-Think-Me-Mad Harbinger of Doom, and may have a strong future as an apocalyptic archetype actor. The Charlton Heston vibe is strong in this one. I can almost see him crying out, “IT’S PEEPUL! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEEEE-PULLLL!”