I'm on a Disney podcast. The reason I even thought I had a chance at making a one of a kind show is because for the longest time I could not find a single Disney podcast that analyzed the Disney films. I figured that since there was no Disney podcast out there that I knew of (or didn't bash Disney the entire podcast), I'd start my own. How I was ignorant to so many Disney podcasts I can't comprehend. Suddenly after I began a Disney podcast of my own, Disney podcasts flooded my twitter feed and iTunes recommendations. In a way, I'm glad I didn't see or listen to any before Talk Magic to Me. If I had, I may not have gone through with my idea and I'm so happy to have a podcast of my own.
End rant.
My recommend this month is The Disney Film Project and it is one of the podcasts that I came across on iTunes in the early weeks of summer. I listened to the first episode about Beauty and the Beast and immediately fell in love! Since then I have been catching up on all of their shows and always look forward to letting them help me get through the work week! The show is hosted by Ryan along with Brie, Rachel, and Todd. I've only listened to early episodes thus far (I just got to episode 90 although I haven't listened to all 90 episodes since some films the hosts discuss I have not yet seen. The reason I say this is because I listened to their most recent episode, Holes, and there is a host I am not familiar with named Rachel so I am assuming she came onto the podcast and Brie left. I guess I will find out!). The show is produced by Cheryl who also puts in her two cents during recordings! The group is a lot of fun to listen to!
The show is a five star spectacular! Each host and guest host has their own unique take on the films and facts that will always hold your interest. The conversation can get into some really deep and critical territory which I love. I have a great deal of respect for the hosts because many people treat Disney films as below them or containing zero intellectual value which is completely not true and these hosts seem to feel the same way. They look at these movies and their history and compare them to other stories and the company's history and point out all the little nuggets the creators place in their films and I enjoy this very much. It's great to hear people breaking down these movies and seeing them for what they are because a film made by Disney doesn't make it necessarily bad or necessarily good. It is a film that is just as valid as any other film. There are times when the audio isn't the greatest but the way I see it, if the content is good than I will listen through thick and thin.
I would highly encourage every Disney fan (or any film buff really) to go and listen to this show. It is a lot of fun and a great way to get a weekly fix of Disney awesomeness. Check them out at the links below.
Website: http://www.disneyfilmproject.com/
Touring Plans: http://touringplans.com/
Disney Driven Life: http://thedisneydrivenlife.com/
Adventures of Brie: http://adventuresofbrie.blogspot.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DisneyFilmProject
Twitter: https://twitter.com/disfilmproject
Podbean: https://twitter.com/disfilmproject
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/disney-film-project-podcast/id413620708
Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/disney-film-project-podcast
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
What's all the Hullabaloo about?
In 2009, Disney dared to return to traditional 2D animation with the film Princess and the Frog. While the film is excellent and, in my opinion, one of Disney's best it didn't make enough money at the box office. Back in 2004, Disney had released another box office failure called Home on the Range, also a 2D hand-drawn animated film, that doesn't stand up to the quality of Princess and the Frog what-so-ever yet was the film that motivated Disney to ditch 2D hand-drawn animation and stick where the money is at with computer animation. They didn't take into account that Home on the Range was just a bad movie in general which could be why it wasn't treated well at the box office...although Princess and the Frog was a grade A movie and that didn't do hot either. At this point, it looked like Disney was going to give up on the traditional style many fans loved. It was pretty clear every other animation company had given up.
Computer animation is great. Hell, it has treated Pixar well. But none seemed to be able to reach the same quality as Pixar. Not only that but people missed the style of 2D hand-drawn animation. The style holds an authenticity to it and feels much more artistic next to computer animation. The debate between 2D and computer animation has become a big part of Disney culture. The popular opinion, which I hold, is that while computer animation is fantastic, 2D shouldn't go away. But Disney didn't seem to care about fan nostalgia or even artistic yearning. Like most businesses, their goal was money. I can't fault them for that.
But then, something fantastic was posted on Indiegogo, a site similar to the likes of Kickstarter. It was a project called Hullabaloo. The project was all over twitter and Disney news sites. Naturally, my attention was caught by the sight of 2D animation. I headed over to the Indiegogo page to learn more. I learned that Hullabaloo is a project that veteran Disney animators are working on to show that 2D hand-drawn animation is not a dying art. The project asked for donations and stated that "by supporting this project, you get to help save 2D animation from an untimely demise." All I can say is, FINALLY! So, what is the Hullabaloo all about? Well, I want to give you three reasons why I am all about Hullabaloo and maybe that will answer this question.
NUMBER 1: (Do I even need to say it?) The revival of the dying art that is 2D animation.
If you asked Walt Disney today if he wanted to go back to 2D animation, I believe his answer would be no. Walt Disney was all about the newest technology and moving forward. That being said, a lot of art is dying thanks to technology. Of course this isn't a bad thing but it isn't necessarily a good thing either. For example, you don't need to carry a notebook and pencil around anymore or hand write anything because you can simply type on a "tablet" or a smart phone. Why buy CD's when you can simply download the music digitally right away?
And who needs 2D animation when computer animation can make an image so much more realistic? As I said, these things are not bad but they seem to fill our need of instant gratification rather than filling our need for good art. I am so happy to see that someone is finally taking action to keep this beautiful art form alive. Plus, veteran Disney animators are involved who have worked on such films as The Lion King, Princess and the Frog, Pocahontas, Tarzan, Beauty and the Beast and more! With this kind of talent, this will be epic!
Number 2: Feminist message.
Let me state right off the bat that I love the Disney Princess and believe them to be fantastic role models (read my defense of the Princesses HERE). But I won't lie that there is a certain archetype that Disney sticks to with their Princesses. In other words, adventure stories are for the male characters. Hullabaloo is different. They've got a female character who is interested in science and heavily invested in learning about the world and being involved in an adventure. This is awesome! I hope this project will reach a broad audience and inspire little girls just as much as the other Disney Princesses and heroines have.
Number 3: Indiegogo.
What is even more awesome than seeing a revival of 2D animation? Actually being involved in funding that animation! I can't imagine this being any more perfect. This is what fans wanted and now they actually have a say (because unfortunately, money typically buys you this right)! I'm so glad to be able to say that I helped fund the revival of 2D animation! This is a community effort and the whole process gives the project more heart and makes it feel less corporate.
Now I haven't actually summarized the story and taken the time to talk about the animators involved. So here is the link to their Indiegogo page! They've made lots of money to fund their project and have reached a few stretch goals! Help them to reach some more!
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/hullabaloo-steampunk-animated-film
Computer animation is great. Hell, it has treated Pixar well. But none seemed to be able to reach the same quality as Pixar. Not only that but people missed the style of 2D hand-drawn animation. The style holds an authenticity to it and feels much more artistic next to computer animation. The debate between 2D and computer animation has become a big part of Disney culture. The popular opinion, which I hold, is that while computer animation is fantastic, 2D shouldn't go away. But Disney didn't seem to care about fan nostalgia or even artistic yearning. Like most businesses, their goal was money. I can't fault them for that.
But then, something fantastic was posted on Indiegogo, a site similar to the likes of Kickstarter. It was a project called Hullabaloo. The project was all over twitter and Disney news sites. Naturally, my attention was caught by the sight of 2D animation. I headed over to the Indiegogo page to learn more. I learned that Hullabaloo is a project that veteran Disney animators are working on to show that 2D hand-drawn animation is not a dying art. The project asked for donations and stated that "by supporting this project, you get to help save 2D animation from an untimely demise." All I can say is, FINALLY! So, what is the Hullabaloo all about? Well, I want to give you three reasons why I am all about Hullabaloo and maybe that will answer this question.
NUMBER 1: (Do I even need to say it?) The revival of the dying art that is 2D animation.
If you asked Walt Disney today if he wanted to go back to 2D animation, I believe his answer would be no. Walt Disney was all about the newest technology and moving forward. That being said, a lot of art is dying thanks to technology. Of course this isn't a bad thing but it isn't necessarily a good thing either. For example, you don't need to carry a notebook and pencil around anymore or hand write anything because you can simply type on a "tablet" or a smart phone. Why buy CD's when you can simply download the music digitally right away?
One of the animators on Hullabaloo |
Number 2: Feminist message.
Let me state right off the bat that I love the Disney Princess and believe them to be fantastic role models (read my defense of the Princesses HERE). But I won't lie that there is a certain archetype that Disney sticks to with their Princesses. In other words, adventure stories are for the male characters. Hullabaloo is different. They've got a female character who is interested in science and heavily invested in learning about the world and being involved in an adventure. This is awesome! I hope this project will reach a broad audience and inspire little girls just as much as the other Disney Princesses and heroines have.
Number 3: Indiegogo.
What is even more awesome than seeing a revival of 2D animation? Actually being involved in funding that animation! I can't imagine this being any more perfect. This is what fans wanted and now they actually have a say (because unfortunately, money typically buys you this right)! I'm so glad to be able to say that I helped fund the revival of 2D animation! This is a community effort and the whole process gives the project more heart and makes it feel less corporate.
Now I haven't actually summarized the story and taken the time to talk about the animators involved. So here is the link to their Indiegogo page! They've made lots of money to fund their project and have reached a few stretch goals! Help them to reach some more!
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/hullabaloo-steampunk-animated-film
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Frozen to Replace Maelstrom in EPCOT World Showcase
It was announced a short while ago that a Frozen attraction will be replacing the Maelstrom ride at EPCOT in Walt Disney World, Florida....but for up to date Disney news geeks, this decision has been on the radar since Frozen's rise to viral attention. My opinions on all of this have been rather hushed because for a while I just didn't know what to think about it all. After listening to many different viewpoints, I finally feel like I have a good grasp on my own thoughts.
I first want to give a full overview of what is going to happen over the next year and a half. Disney is planning on closing the over 20 year old Norway attraction called Maelstrom and replacing it with a Frozen themed attraction, set to open in early 2016. The main consensus for this decision is that Frozen takes place in Norway and will add a fresh vibe to Norway's under-touched section of the World Showcase.
My thoughts on Frozen are never consistent. I am constantly torn between enjoying Frozen and despising Frozen. To try and summarize my feelings, I would say the movie is good but wayyyyy overrated. The original source material was not used nearly enough, the animation and sets are gorgeous, the music starts out epically but turns into a modern candy coated ritual, and compared to other Disney films it simply carries no weight. That only scratches the surface of my opinions about the movie. As for the Maelstrom attraction, I recently road it when I was last at Disney World in November 2013. It wasn't a stand out ride to me. I've been to Disney three other times and I had never heard of this attraction until the fourth. While the experience of riding it was kind of cool, the overall ride was rather dull and underwhelming. Although the ride carries a lot of history, it felt out of place to me. As I said, I didn't even remember it after visiting Disney three times.
But how do I feel about it being replaced by a Frozen themed ride? Well, my feelings are mixed. There are tons of different angles you can take when discussing this debate. For this blog, I am going to refer to two different articles along with the comments from those articles. All links to the source material can be found at the end of this blog. I want to build off the points I read in the comments and the articles because I feel my voice isn't the only voice that should be heard. I want to incorporate a variety of opinions. So without further ado, let us begin.
Point number one: Frozen takes place in Norway and will fit perfectly in World Showcase, right?
Frozen takes place in the fictional land of Arendelle which is said to be located in Norway. The filmmakers drew a lot of inspiration and material from Norway and much of the culture is incorporated in the sets and minimally used throughout the soundtrack. But "what does [Arendelle] have to do with Norway?", commenter Bill asks on Inside the Magic. I would have to ask the same question. Frozen, while taking place in Norway, does not pay homage to Norway or Norwegian culture. It is simply a backdrop. The movie infrequently uses ethereal music to strengthen the cultural influence but it is not used nearly enough. If the Norwegian culture were at the heart of this movie I'd say this is a great change. But let's be honest here; when people think of Frozen they think of Let It Go. When people think of something like Ratatouille, they think France and food.
Which brings me to the next side of this issue. Point number two: Other countries have incorporated Disney movies. Why do people take such a big issue with Frozen?
This is a really good point. Disney incorporates characters in their designated countries and has already incorporated one of their films, the Three Caballeros, into Mexico. I actually think this is something very important to World Showcase, specifically for the kids. It shows them where their favorite characters are from and gives them an incentive to go to an area of Disney that may be considered boring otherwise. Giving Norway a little dose of Frozen is not a bad thing. As John Frost on the Disney Blog points out in his article, "The world didn't end when Donald and pals appeared in Mexico and having Belle & Aurora walk-arounds hasn't destroyed France. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if this announcement was for a Ratatouille attraction...the fans would be 90% in favor of it." Frost presents excellent points but they don't hold up entirely. As I said in my first point, Frozen has virtually nothing to do with Norwegian culture. The influence is only apparent in the sets and some places of the soundtrack. The Three Caballeros is all about Mexican culture (I assume, I have truthfully never seen the movie but only small clips) so it makes sense to be present in Mexico. It also helps people recall a forgotten film. As for characters like Belle and Aurora walking around France, that does not carry the same weight as a film attraction. If Anna, Elsa, and Kristoff walked around Norway, I think that would be great! But these are just characters, not a full blown ride. Finally, Ratatouille (like Caballeros) centers around France and food. It totally makes sense to have a ride or attraction there for the film. My point is, Frozen in Norway is not bad at all. "That being said, the addition of characters in small doses could be a good thing for EPCOT, since it seems to be struggling to maintain or renew it's identity," says Dan Cruz on the Disney Blog comments. Overall, why is Disney moving forward with this when other movies should be taken advantage of because they just make more sense?
Which brings me to my next two points. Point number three: Why EPCOT? And point number four: Is this because Frozen went viral?
Let's start with number three. As I said in the beginning of this blog, no Disney fan was particularly surprised by this news. It has been rumored for quite some time. I have thought about this point a lot and have always felt EPCOT was not the way to go. Why? Well, as I already stated, Frozen in concept has a lot to do with Norway but the film itself hardly has anything to do with it. However, Frozen does blatantly emphasize two things - the element of fantasy and the oxymoron of a snowman wanting it to be summer. There are two parts in Disney World that these themes can play off of - Fantasyland in Magic Kingdom and Blizzard Beach. To me, Blizzard Beach always made perfect sense. Olaf would be a perfect face and the whole concept of the park is already established. Frozen could just move in. A snowman who loves summer only makes sense, right? Jeff Lynch on the Inside the Magic comments shares my opinion saying, "I really wanted them to re-theme Blizzard Beach as a Frozen-themed water park. It would have been perfect." Another commenter, Robert, responded, "You just described re-themeing an entire park versus one attraction." He goes on but I think his point is clear enough. He is right. While the idea works, it would take a lot of reconstructing and a lot of time and money and be way more of a Frozen takeover (though they could have just put a Frozen area but I digress). What is left is Fantasyland. I quote Frost again who says of the attraction, "I think it would fit better in Magic Kingdom with the other animated princesses." I couldn't agree more here as well. Frozen has heavy emphasis on their royal characters and it would only make sense to add them to Magic Kingdom. To play devils advocate, I can see why the Maelstrom works. It is space that is old and forgotten and won't require nearly the amount of money to refurbish than establish an entirely new Frozen section of the park. Or here is an idea, why don't we just "let it go" and not Frozen-ize at all?
Now to attack my fourth point. It is obvious that Frozen has become a viral sensation.
Everyone knows the famous track sung by Idina Menzel. YouTubers cover the songs, websites blog about Frozen news and controversy, news stations talk about it, the radio plays the music, it is all over the TV, and in your head when you are trying to sleep. Frozen has reached a level of intensity that we can't escape. The hype has died down a bit but Disney won't let us "let it go" so easily. PJ on the Inside the Magic comments states, "Maelstrom wasn't my favorite ride, but it's an important part of the Norwegian Pavilion [in my humble opinion]. It's a real shame to me that they'd replace it for the flavor on the month movie...". I agree with PJ 100%. I tried to search for comments that validly disprove him but the comments turned into petty arguments that included stats about highest grossing films and insults to each others mothers. A few pages later, I found a comment that unconsciously built on what PJ said. RJ Piner writes, "Why can't Disney just add new attractions to it's parks instead of tearing down classics. Here is an idea, why not add a new ride based on a popular movie to Hollywood Studios the park themed around movies? Call me crazy, but Hollywood Studios is in desperate need of help. To be honest, I feel thing (along with the upcoming Avatar land) is just 'knee jerk' reactions to Universal' success with it's two Harry Potter lands and Transformers." I couldn't agree with this comment more (besides the Hollywood Studios part. I don't know why everyone keeps saying Frozen should go there). This definitely is a knee jerk reaction to viral success and the success of Disney's competitor Universal Studios. Disney had had many opportunities to expand with their films but haven't. As I mentioned earlier, where is a Ratatouille attraction? Where is a ride where you fly in a house by balloons like Up or ride the doors like Mike and Sully in Monsters, Inc.? Where is a ride where you are traveling through gaming worlds like in Wreck It Ralph?
My fifth points exists in three parts - Part one: Cartoons vs. reality; Part two: EPCOT/Norway's falling reputation; Part three: the authenticity of EPCOT.
I love fairy-tales and fiction. My whole lift practically revolves around these two things. It is what Disney does, "they use fantasy to shine a light on reality," as John Frost beautifully puts it. But does this work with EPCOT? Well...no. The answer is no. EPCOT is a mix of many themes but fantasy is not one of them. Tom Staggs writes on the Disney Parks Blog, "I'm pleased to say that we're starting construction at Walt Disney World Resort on a brand new 'Frozen' attraction at the Norway Pavilion in EPCOT. The new attraction, which replaces Maelstrom, will take our guests to Arendelle and immerse them in many of their favorite moments and music from the film." Here is my problem. Staggs says, take our guests to Arendelle and that isn't Norway. It is a fantasy world! It may be based on Norway but it's heart is fantasy. The ride will not be embracing Norwegian culture if we are trusting Staggs who goes on to say how we will be immersed in film moments that virtually having nothing to do with Norway or the culture.
What sets EPCOT apart from the other parks is its lack of fantasy. As I said before, I love fantasy and fiction! But EPCOT has a worldly quality to it that brings a sense of sophistication to Walt Disney World. This, I feel, will be diverging from EPCOT's purpose.
That being said, it is no secret that EPCOT has a low reputation among theme park goers. It is my family's least favorite park (not mine, I have no least favorite). Norway has little to offer these days. As I said in the beginning, Maelstrom was forgettable. John Frost writes, "the country of Norway has not been paying for pavilion maintenance or upgrades for some time...'Frozen' will bring life back to the pavilion.' This is a really great point. Norway needs something to bring life back into it and Frozen can sure bring that. One commenter named Brandi Boyd writes, "I love Maelstrom and am sorry to see it go. However, everything changes and I completely understand Disney wanting to capitalize on Frozen's phenomenal success." This is a wonderful point. Everything changes. Frost finishes his post with, "EPCOT hasn't been living up to it's potential," and I would have to agree.
But at what cost shall we diverge from what EPCOT was, is, and will be? Will a Frozen take over damage EPCOT's authenticity. Well, Staggs version sure makes it look that way. A Disney Blog commentor named Brian Greer writes, "Disney established what the park was supposed to be. They sold us those ideals. Then they largely abandoned them. I know Disney is only interested in cash. I get that I was a chump who believed it was about more than that." The latter I will get to in my next point, but sticking to his first sentence, Greer is right. Disney established EPCOT and is not breaking that establishment. Monu writes on the Inside the Magic comments, "The reason this park was built was for worldly experiences. For lovers of travel and culture. Learning. Almost a museum if you will but with a ton more flare." My point exactly. Fantasy was never meant to be a strong force in EPCOT. Yes it will bring life to the park but there are many other routes to doing something similar. Commenter Jeff writes, "I disagree that Disney is for kids. Disney is for families. Disney is for everyone. EPCOT appeals to adults and knowledge seekers, those of us who relish museums, and traveling to non-English speaking countries...The challenge of continually finding ways to keep that spirit fresh is a one that nobody at [Walt Disney World] has had the ability or desire to take on since the late 80's. So it has become a repository for popular clownfish, and California based attractions that kind of work, and Ellen. It's really just a shame that arguably the most unique park ever built is slowly losing its identity, being homogenized into a generic theme park." I had to include Jeff's comment because of how well written it is but how true it is can be debated. Another commenter, Woolf on Inside the Magic writes in response to Monu's comment, "Maybe the original idea behind this EPCOT park was to be educational and 'almost a museum,' but the REASON the park was built was to make money."
Which brings me to my final point. Point number six: Disney is a business.
Yep. I hate to say it but despite all of these issues I have laid out in great detail, they don't matter when it comes to money and business. One commenter on Inside the Magic named David writes, "I would rather see Disney suffer a hostile takeover and be broken up and sold off in pieces like they almost were in 1984, than see a Frozen attraction replace Maelstrom." I strongly disagree with this comment on so many levels. First of all, I don't want Disney to go bankrupt and be sold off in pieces. If Disney had had this fate in 1984 we would have never had the Disney Renaissance and everything offered at the parks today! I believe Disney had a lot more to offer and if this ride helps their business, so be it. Frozen is a cash cow and Disney knows that bringing Frozen to a dying area will manipulate kids to beg their tired parents to go to EPCOT and ride the Frozen ride and buy Frozen merchandise which is sure to come at the rides end.
As a creator myself, I have come to realize that planning and mapping ideas for certain reasons doesn't always come across to audiences. Disney had a hit and whether it was good or not, they most likely began to brainstorm realistic ways to bring Frozen to the theme parks. Bringing a Frozen makeover to Maelstrom allows them to save money because they aren't building new construction on new land but just reconstructing an attraction. They will bring more people to Norway and to do that people must walk through the other countries.
Commenter Reed writes on Inside the Magic, "After reading some of these comments, I am truly conflicted. Both sides have excellent points." Indeed he is right. There are lots of pros and cons to this news. Another commenter named DisneySon1 summarizes my feelings perfectly. He writes, "I'm cautiously optimistic that the marriage of Norway and Frozen will be tasteful, respectful, and ten times more dazzling than the current attraction at the pavilion, while preserving what is truly important about Norwegian culture in the pavilion. But until we can actually ride this thing in a few years (or even see concept art), I'll withhold final judgement and wait until we can actually judge this 'transformation' ourselves."
From a fan perspective, I feel like a better choice could have been made. Disney could take advantage of putting more fitting movies in other attractions and put Frozen in a more fitting environment. This also threatens the purpose of EPCOT. From a business perspective, this is a move that will save money and draw in the masses. It is a good move.
While this blog must come off as I don't like this decision, I actually think that overall it will be a good one. I think we are all threatened by change and it is a bit nerve wrecking to know that Frozen is taking over Disney in such a large way but once we see concept art and actually ride the attraction, I think we will all be pleasantly surprised. While Disney isn't as "great" as it could be, I still think they have great ideas and that they are dedicated to quality. Whether or not we like the idea, Disney will sure as hell make it amazing!
What are your thoughts on the new Frozen attraction? Do you love it or hate it? Or are you somewhere in between? Let me know in the comments! Thanks for reading!
Inside the Magic: http://www.insidethemagic.net/2014/09/frozen-ride-officially-announced-for-walt-disney-world-to-replace-maelstrom-in-norway-at-epcot/
The Disney Blog: http://thedisneyblog.com/2014/09/12/frozen-attraction-officially-coming-to-epcots-norway-pavilion/
I first want to give a full overview of what is going to happen over the next year and a half. Disney is planning on closing the over 20 year old Norway attraction called Maelstrom and replacing it with a Frozen themed attraction, set to open in early 2016. The main consensus for this decision is that Frozen takes place in Norway and will add a fresh vibe to Norway's under-touched section of the World Showcase.
My thoughts on Frozen are never consistent. I am constantly torn between enjoying Frozen and despising Frozen. To try and summarize my feelings, I would say the movie is good but wayyyyy overrated. The original source material was not used nearly enough, the animation and sets are gorgeous, the music starts out epically but turns into a modern candy coated ritual, and compared to other Disney films it simply carries no weight. That only scratches the surface of my opinions about the movie. As for the Maelstrom attraction, I recently road it when I was last at Disney World in November 2013. It wasn't a stand out ride to me. I've been to Disney three other times and I had never heard of this attraction until the fourth. While the experience of riding it was kind of cool, the overall ride was rather dull and underwhelming. Although the ride carries a lot of history, it felt out of place to me. As I said, I didn't even remember it after visiting Disney three times.
But how do I feel about it being replaced by a Frozen themed ride? Well, my feelings are mixed. There are tons of different angles you can take when discussing this debate. For this blog, I am going to refer to two different articles along with the comments from those articles. All links to the source material can be found at the end of this blog. I want to build off the points I read in the comments and the articles because I feel my voice isn't the only voice that should be heard. I want to incorporate a variety of opinions. So without further ado, let us begin.
Point number one: Frozen takes place in Norway and will fit perfectly in World Showcase, right?
Frozen takes place in the fictional land of Arendelle which is said to be located in Norway. The filmmakers drew a lot of inspiration and material from Norway and much of the culture is incorporated in the sets and minimally used throughout the soundtrack. But "what does [Arendelle] have to do with Norway?", commenter Bill asks on Inside the Magic. I would have to ask the same question. Frozen, while taking place in Norway, does not pay homage to Norway or Norwegian culture. It is simply a backdrop. The movie infrequently uses ethereal music to strengthen the cultural influence but it is not used nearly enough. If the Norwegian culture were at the heart of this movie I'd say this is a great change. But let's be honest here; when people think of Frozen they think of Let It Go. When people think of something like Ratatouille, they think France and food.
Which brings me to the next side of this issue. Point number two: Other countries have incorporated Disney movies. Why do people take such a big issue with Frozen?
This is a really good point. Disney incorporates characters in their designated countries and has already incorporated one of their films, the Three Caballeros, into Mexico. I actually think this is something very important to World Showcase, specifically for the kids. It shows them where their favorite characters are from and gives them an incentive to go to an area of Disney that may be considered boring otherwise. Giving Norway a little dose of Frozen is not a bad thing. As John Frost on the Disney Blog points out in his article, "The world didn't end when Donald and pals appeared in Mexico and having Belle & Aurora walk-arounds hasn't destroyed France. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if this announcement was for a Ratatouille attraction...the fans would be 90% in favor of it." Frost presents excellent points but they don't hold up entirely. As I said in my first point, Frozen has virtually nothing to do with Norwegian culture. The influence is only apparent in the sets and some places of the soundtrack. The Three Caballeros is all about Mexican culture (I assume, I have truthfully never seen the movie but only small clips) so it makes sense to be present in Mexico. It also helps people recall a forgotten film. As for characters like Belle and Aurora walking around France, that does not carry the same weight as a film attraction. If Anna, Elsa, and Kristoff walked around Norway, I think that would be great! But these are just characters, not a full blown ride. Finally, Ratatouille (like Caballeros) centers around France and food. It totally makes sense to have a ride or attraction there for the film. My point is, Frozen in Norway is not bad at all. "That being said, the addition of characters in small doses could be a good thing for EPCOT, since it seems to be struggling to maintain or renew it's identity," says Dan Cruz on the Disney Blog comments. Overall, why is Disney moving forward with this when other movies should be taken advantage of because they just make more sense?
Which brings me to my next two points. Point number three: Why EPCOT? And point number four: Is this because Frozen went viral?
Let's start with number three. As I said in the beginning of this blog, no Disney fan was particularly surprised by this news. It has been rumored for quite some time. I have thought about this point a lot and have always felt EPCOT was not the way to go. Why? Well, as I already stated, Frozen in concept has a lot to do with Norway but the film itself hardly has anything to do with it. However, Frozen does blatantly emphasize two things - the element of fantasy and the oxymoron of a snowman wanting it to be summer. There are two parts in Disney World that these themes can play off of - Fantasyland in Magic Kingdom and Blizzard Beach. To me, Blizzard Beach always made perfect sense. Olaf would be a perfect face and the whole concept of the park is already established. Frozen could just move in. A snowman who loves summer only makes sense, right? Jeff Lynch on the Inside the Magic comments shares my opinion saying, "I really wanted them to re-theme Blizzard Beach as a Frozen-themed water park. It would have been perfect." Another commenter, Robert, responded, "You just described re-themeing an entire park versus one attraction." He goes on but I think his point is clear enough. He is right. While the idea works, it would take a lot of reconstructing and a lot of time and money and be way more of a Frozen takeover (though they could have just put a Frozen area but I digress). What is left is Fantasyland. I quote Frost again who says of the attraction, "I think it would fit better in Magic Kingdom with the other animated princesses." I couldn't agree more here as well. Frozen has heavy emphasis on their royal characters and it would only make sense to add them to Magic Kingdom. To play devils advocate, I can see why the Maelstrom works. It is space that is old and forgotten and won't require nearly the amount of money to refurbish than establish an entirely new Frozen section of the park. Or here is an idea, why don't we just "let it go" and not Frozen-ize at all?
Now to attack my fourth point. It is obvious that Frozen has become a viral sensation.
Everyone knows the famous track sung by Idina Menzel. YouTubers cover the songs, websites blog about Frozen news and controversy, news stations talk about it, the radio plays the music, it is all over the TV, and in your head when you are trying to sleep. Frozen has reached a level of intensity that we can't escape. The hype has died down a bit but Disney won't let us "let it go" so easily. PJ on the Inside the Magic comments states, "Maelstrom wasn't my favorite ride, but it's an important part of the Norwegian Pavilion [in my humble opinion]. It's a real shame to me that they'd replace it for the flavor on the month movie...". I agree with PJ 100%. I tried to search for comments that validly disprove him but the comments turned into petty arguments that included stats about highest grossing films and insults to each others mothers. A few pages later, I found a comment that unconsciously built on what PJ said. RJ Piner writes, "Why can't Disney just add new attractions to it's parks instead of tearing down classics. Here is an idea, why not add a new ride based on a popular movie to Hollywood Studios the park themed around movies? Call me crazy, but Hollywood Studios is in desperate need of help. To be honest, I feel thing (along with the upcoming Avatar land) is just 'knee jerk' reactions to Universal' success with it's two Harry Potter lands and Transformers." I couldn't agree with this comment more (besides the Hollywood Studios part. I don't know why everyone keeps saying Frozen should go there). This definitely is a knee jerk reaction to viral success and the success of Disney's competitor Universal Studios. Disney had had many opportunities to expand with their films but haven't. As I mentioned earlier, where is a Ratatouille attraction? Where is a ride where you fly in a house by balloons like Up or ride the doors like Mike and Sully in Monsters, Inc.? Where is a ride where you are traveling through gaming worlds like in Wreck It Ralph?
My fifth points exists in three parts - Part one: Cartoons vs. reality; Part two: EPCOT/Norway's falling reputation; Part three: the authenticity of EPCOT.
I love fairy-tales and fiction. My whole lift practically revolves around these two things. It is what Disney does, "they use fantasy to shine a light on reality," as John Frost beautifully puts it. But does this work with EPCOT? Well...no. The answer is no. EPCOT is a mix of many themes but fantasy is not one of them. Tom Staggs writes on the Disney Parks Blog, "I'm pleased to say that we're starting construction at Walt Disney World Resort on a brand new 'Frozen' attraction at the Norway Pavilion in EPCOT. The new attraction, which replaces Maelstrom, will take our guests to Arendelle and immerse them in many of their favorite moments and music from the film." Here is my problem. Staggs says, take our guests to Arendelle and that isn't Norway. It is a fantasy world! It may be based on Norway but it's heart is fantasy. The ride will not be embracing Norwegian culture if we are trusting Staggs who goes on to say how we will be immersed in film moments that virtually having nothing to do with Norway or the culture.
What sets EPCOT apart from the other parks is its lack of fantasy. As I said before, I love fantasy and fiction! But EPCOT has a worldly quality to it that brings a sense of sophistication to Walt Disney World. This, I feel, will be diverging from EPCOT's purpose.
That being said, it is no secret that EPCOT has a low reputation among theme park goers. It is my family's least favorite park (not mine, I have no least favorite). Norway has little to offer these days. As I said in the beginning, Maelstrom was forgettable. John Frost writes, "the country of Norway has not been paying for pavilion maintenance or upgrades for some time...'Frozen' will bring life back to the pavilion.' This is a really great point. Norway needs something to bring life back into it and Frozen can sure bring that. One commenter named Brandi Boyd writes, "I love Maelstrom and am sorry to see it go. However, everything changes and I completely understand Disney wanting to capitalize on Frozen's phenomenal success." This is a wonderful point. Everything changes. Frost finishes his post with, "EPCOT hasn't been living up to it's potential," and I would have to agree.
But at what cost shall we diverge from what EPCOT was, is, and will be? Will a Frozen take over damage EPCOT's authenticity. Well, Staggs version sure makes it look that way. A Disney Blog commentor named Brian Greer writes, "Disney established what the park was supposed to be. They sold us those ideals. Then they largely abandoned them. I know Disney is only interested in cash. I get that I was a chump who believed it was about more than that." The latter I will get to in my next point, but sticking to his first sentence, Greer is right. Disney established EPCOT and is not breaking that establishment. Monu writes on the Inside the Magic comments, "The reason this park was built was for worldly experiences. For lovers of travel and culture. Learning. Almost a museum if you will but with a ton more flare." My point exactly. Fantasy was never meant to be a strong force in EPCOT. Yes it will bring life to the park but there are many other routes to doing something similar. Commenter Jeff writes, "I disagree that Disney is for kids. Disney is for families. Disney is for everyone. EPCOT appeals to adults and knowledge seekers, those of us who relish museums, and traveling to non-English speaking countries...The challenge of continually finding ways to keep that spirit fresh is a one that nobody at [Walt Disney World] has had the ability or desire to take on since the late 80's. So it has become a repository for popular clownfish, and California based attractions that kind of work, and Ellen. It's really just a shame that arguably the most unique park ever built is slowly losing its identity, being homogenized into a generic theme park." I had to include Jeff's comment because of how well written it is but how true it is can be debated. Another commenter, Woolf on Inside the Magic writes in response to Monu's comment, "Maybe the original idea behind this EPCOT park was to be educational and 'almost a museum,' but the REASON the park was built was to make money."
Which brings me to my final point. Point number six: Disney is a business.
Yep. I hate to say it but despite all of these issues I have laid out in great detail, they don't matter when it comes to money and business. One commenter on Inside the Magic named David writes, "I would rather see Disney suffer a hostile takeover and be broken up and sold off in pieces like they almost were in 1984, than see a Frozen attraction replace Maelstrom." I strongly disagree with this comment on so many levels. First of all, I don't want Disney to go bankrupt and be sold off in pieces. If Disney had had this fate in 1984 we would have never had the Disney Renaissance and everything offered at the parks today! I believe Disney had a lot more to offer and if this ride helps their business, so be it. Frozen is a cash cow and Disney knows that bringing Frozen to a dying area will manipulate kids to beg their tired parents to go to EPCOT and ride the Frozen ride and buy Frozen merchandise which is sure to come at the rides end.
As a creator myself, I have come to realize that planning and mapping ideas for certain reasons doesn't always come across to audiences. Disney had a hit and whether it was good or not, they most likely began to brainstorm realistic ways to bring Frozen to the theme parks. Bringing a Frozen makeover to Maelstrom allows them to save money because they aren't building new construction on new land but just reconstructing an attraction. They will bring more people to Norway and to do that people must walk through the other countries.
Commenter Reed writes on Inside the Magic, "After reading some of these comments, I am truly conflicted. Both sides have excellent points." Indeed he is right. There are lots of pros and cons to this news. Another commenter named DisneySon1 summarizes my feelings perfectly. He writes, "I'm cautiously optimistic that the marriage of Norway and Frozen will be tasteful, respectful, and ten times more dazzling than the current attraction at the pavilion, while preserving what is truly important about Norwegian culture in the pavilion. But until we can actually ride this thing in a few years (or even see concept art), I'll withhold final judgement and wait until we can actually judge this 'transformation' ourselves."
From a fan perspective, I feel like a better choice could have been made. Disney could take advantage of putting more fitting movies in other attractions and put Frozen in a more fitting environment. This also threatens the purpose of EPCOT. From a business perspective, this is a move that will save money and draw in the masses. It is a good move.
While this blog must come off as I don't like this decision, I actually think that overall it will be a good one. I think we are all threatened by change and it is a bit nerve wrecking to know that Frozen is taking over Disney in such a large way but once we see concept art and actually ride the attraction, I think we will all be pleasantly surprised. While Disney isn't as "great" as it could be, I still think they have great ideas and that they are dedicated to quality. Whether or not we like the idea, Disney will sure as hell make it amazing!
What are your thoughts on the new Frozen attraction? Do you love it or hate it? Or are you somewhere in between? Let me know in the comments! Thanks for reading!
Inside the Magic: http://www.insidethemagic.net/2014/09/frozen-ride-officially-announced-for-walt-disney-world-to-replace-maelstrom-in-norway-at-epcot/
The Disney Blog: http://thedisneyblog.com/2014/09/12/frozen-attraction-officially-coming-to-epcots-norway-pavilion/
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
The Wisdom of Pixar by Robert Velarde Book Review
Original post: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-wisdom-of-pixar-by-robert-velarde.html
Pixar has always been a huge part of my life. I grew up with the movies and can appreciate them as artistic films as an adult. When I was in high school, I became very fascinated with entertainment and the connections with Christian spirituality. Being a teenager and still very inexperienced in many aspects of life, I didn't quite have the vocabulary to state what I felt and saw, but I continued to have an interest and learned a lot since then. I now know I'm not the only one who sees these connections. There are books and books discussing entertainment's connection with faith as well as psychology, philosophy, history, etc. I have read quite a few of these books and want to write one of my own someday. The Wisdom of Pixar by Robert Velarde is one these awesome books and it does a great job of analyzing these films and forming connections that the viewer may not have noticed before.
If you aren't aware, I am a host on a Disney podcast called Talk Magic to Me. Disney is a big part of my life and I have always felt a strong connection with their movies. That is why I am on the podcast, to discuss my love for Disney in a community based way. Our summer theme is Pixar and I figured this was as a good a time as any to start reading this book. A big plus to being on a podcast is that I contacted author Robert Velarde himself and had a chance to interview him! How cool is that?!
I'm going to state right away that this will be a five star review. I'm telling you this early because I don't want you to think I'm giving the book kudos just because I interviewed the author. Nope, not the case. I genuinely really loved this book. While the title of the book doesn't overtly hint at any faith based analysis, it is primarily focused on Pixar films and their connection to Christian faith and spirituality. Wisdom itself is a biblical virtue after all. I find it a bit ignorant when I see people reviewing this book with one or two stars just because of it's Christian worldview. Every book has a worldview so why start getting picky when there is a Christian one? Velarde doesn't shove the theology mindlessly down our throats. He meets us in the middle and is very straight forward...here is a movie, this biblical virtue exists within that movie, this is what we can learn and take away to apply to our own lives. Velarde makes it clear that he isn't saying Pixar intended to make their movies as biblical metaphors. But as John Green states, "Books belong to their readers" and this saying isn't limited to books but all entertainment. What you get out of a film, TV show, painting, or video game is equally (if not more) important than the author's intent. This phrase has always been bittersweet for me because as a writer and creator I want my intentions to be known yet as a reader I have interpreted texts and art in a very specific way that has helped me grow as a person but not everyone gets.
The book is split into chapters in order of Pixar movies, starting with Toy Story and ending with Up. Each chapter has a different focus on wisdom such as love, humor, technology, justice, etc. and how the piece of wisdom ties into the movie of focus (with an occasional look at other Pixar films that also incorporate the same aspect of wisdom). The chapter will use biblical examples to make things clearer. Velarde does a great job at breaking these films down and analyzing them in a simplistic way. He reveals the depth within Pixar that many
choose not to see since they label it as kids entertainment. David Beagley, a professor at La Trobe University once said in a lecture, "Children's literature is not simple. It's as complex as adults. It's the audience that is different, not the literature." The same can be said about any other medium. Of course with film this idea is hard to see since so many companies only make kids movies for money and use stupid dialogue and easy humor that suggests no adult will ever enjoy these movies at all! Luckily Pixar is not one of those companies, nor Disney...or at least most Disney movies don't adhere to that standard but there are exceptions. Ironically enough, David Beagley also stated in his lecture that he hates Disney which made me die a little inside because I really respect him and hoped some scholar would see the good in Disney but so many don't.
Pixar is the perfect example to show that not all "kids" movies are simple. They hold a lot of weight! What is cool about being a 90's kid is that I grew up in arguably the greatest era of Disney...the Disney Renaissance, good Disney channel programming, and of course the birth of Pixar. These films have really shaped me as a person. I'm not saying my entire being is all thanks to Disney/Pixar but you get my point. I was able to enjoy these as a kid and now can still enjoy them as an adult but in an academic way which is really awesome!
The book was excellent. I really enjoyed Velarde's writing style. He wrote as if you were on the journey through Pixar movies together. He has a lot of important things to say about these movies and the biblical imagery within them that should be taken more seriously by Christians and entertainment lovers alike. It was thought provoking and written well. If you love Pixar, you will really enjoy this book. As I said, I will be giving this 5 out of 5 stars. If you want to check out our interview with Robert Velarde, visit www.talkmagic2me.net and be sure to rate and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes.
Pixar has always been a huge part of my life. I grew up with the movies and can appreciate them as artistic films as an adult. When I was in high school, I became very fascinated with entertainment and the connections with Christian spirituality. Being a teenager and still very inexperienced in many aspects of life, I didn't quite have the vocabulary to state what I felt and saw, but I continued to have an interest and learned a lot since then. I now know I'm not the only one who sees these connections. There are books and books discussing entertainment's connection with faith as well as psychology, philosophy, history, etc. I have read quite a few of these books and want to write one of my own someday. The Wisdom of Pixar by Robert Velarde is one these awesome books and it does a great job of analyzing these films and forming connections that the viewer may not have noticed before.
If you aren't aware, I am a host on a Disney podcast called Talk Magic to Me. Disney is a big part of my life and I have always felt a strong connection with their movies. That is why I am on the podcast, to discuss my love for Disney in a community based way. Our summer theme is Pixar and I figured this was as a good a time as any to start reading this book. A big plus to being on a podcast is that I contacted author Robert Velarde himself and had a chance to interview him! How cool is that?!
I'm going to state right away that this will be a five star review. I'm telling you this early because I don't want you to think I'm giving the book kudos just because I interviewed the author. Nope, not the case. I genuinely really loved this book. While the title of the book doesn't overtly hint at any faith based analysis, it is primarily focused on Pixar films and their connection to Christian faith and spirituality. Wisdom itself is a biblical virtue after all. I find it a bit ignorant when I see people reviewing this book with one or two stars just because of it's Christian worldview. Every book has a worldview so why start getting picky when there is a Christian one? Velarde doesn't shove the theology mindlessly down our throats. He meets us in the middle and is very straight forward...here is a movie, this biblical virtue exists within that movie, this is what we can learn and take away to apply to our own lives. Velarde makes it clear that he isn't saying Pixar intended to make their movies as biblical metaphors. But as John Green states, "Books belong to their readers" and this saying isn't limited to books but all entertainment. What you get out of a film, TV show, painting, or video game is equally (if not more) important than the author's intent. This phrase has always been bittersweet for me because as a writer and creator I want my intentions to be known yet as a reader I have interpreted texts and art in a very specific way that has helped me grow as a person but not everyone gets.
The book is split into chapters in order of Pixar movies, starting with Toy Story and ending with Up. Each chapter has a different focus on wisdom such as love, humor, technology, justice, etc. and how the piece of wisdom ties into the movie of focus (with an occasional look at other Pixar films that also incorporate the same aspect of wisdom). The chapter will use biblical examples to make things clearer. Velarde does a great job at breaking these films down and analyzing them in a simplistic way. He reveals the depth within Pixar that many
choose not to see since they label it as kids entertainment. David Beagley, a professor at La Trobe University once said in a lecture, "Children's literature is not simple. It's as complex as adults. It's the audience that is different, not the literature." The same can be said about any other medium. Of course with film this idea is hard to see since so many companies only make kids movies for money and use stupid dialogue and easy humor that suggests no adult will ever enjoy these movies at all! Luckily Pixar is not one of those companies, nor Disney...or at least most Disney movies don't adhere to that standard but there are exceptions. Ironically enough, David Beagley also stated in his lecture that he hates Disney which made me die a little inside because I really respect him and hoped some scholar would see the good in Disney but so many don't.
Pixar is the perfect example to show that not all "kids" movies are simple. They hold a lot of weight! What is cool about being a 90's kid is that I grew up in arguably the greatest era of Disney...the Disney Renaissance, good Disney channel programming, and of course the birth of Pixar. These films have really shaped me as a person. I'm not saying my entire being is all thanks to Disney/Pixar but you get my point. I was able to enjoy these as a kid and now can still enjoy them as an adult but in an academic way which is really awesome!
The book was excellent. I really enjoyed Velarde's writing style. He wrote as if you were on the journey through Pixar movies together. He has a lot of important things to say about these movies and the biblical imagery within them that should be taken more seriously by Christians and entertainment lovers alike. It was thought provoking and written well. If you love Pixar, you will really enjoy this book. As I said, I will be giving this 5 out of 5 stars. If you want to check out our interview with Robert Velarde, visit www.talkmagic2me.net and be sure to rate and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Dead Poets Society Movie Review
"Carpie Diem. Seize the day, boys. Make your lives extraordinary."
This quote is probably the most famous line from Touch Stone's 1989 classic, Dead Poets Society. Starring the semi-newcomer Ethan Hawke, and the talented Robin Williams as the English professor everyone wants to have at least once during their education career, Dead Poets Society takes place at an all boys Catholic boarding school in the 1950s. The story focuses on a group of boys and their experience with their new English teacher, Professor Keating.
This film is excellent; a bit overrated but excellent all the same. The story is wonderful, the direction is exemplary, the characters are magnificent, and the score and visuals are absolutely gorgeous. I have a love for boarding school stories which makes me a bit bias toward this story but hey, we are all biased in one way or another. I can't quite comprehend my attachment to this particular trope. Perhaps it is the idea of being overnight like being away at camp that excites me...after all, my years going away to overnight camp are some of the best memories of my teenage years. There always seems to be a foreign yet wonderful aspect to boarding school stories that makes them so fantastical to me and bring back my own memories from staying at camp overnight. The film also carries a very novel quality to it which is illustrated through all aspects of the film from the reflective score to the colorful personalities dubbed to each character.
A topic widely debated about this film is the issue of the main character. Many believe it is Neal or Professor Keating, but many also believe it is Todd. I would have to agree with the latter. While all of the characters are set up with conflict, it is Todd who sheds his cocoon and turns into a butterfly. Okay, all cheesy metaphors aside, Todd starts out as a shy young man who is weighted down by the expectations set forth by his older brother. While I can't relate to the older sibling aspect of Todd, I can relate to his shyness and his desire to take his teacher seriously. I too would have been like Todd and I forged a connection with him right away. But while Todd shows the most growth, the other characters grow too within the confines of their story. Too often movies will create side characters that only exist to push the plot forward and they become generic caricatures. This is why Dead Poets is so novel. It shows Knox trying to get the girl and it shows Neal struggling to defy his father in a healthy way and it shows Professor Keating struggling against conformity; but in the end it all comes back to Todd who is shown in the film's film shot. The characters are not simple and the film
doesn't set it up that way which in itself is revolutionary. In most films, if the character isn't a main one then we only see the side character with our main character. It is a trope that isn't bad but none the less a trope, but this movie defied that and said, "Hey, you are gonna see clips of these kids whether they are the main characters or not!" It is almost as if the film is asking the viewer to decide themselves who the main character is.
Todd in the final shot of the film |
The character Professor Keating is the sort of Professor everyone dreams of having, someone who shakes things up and shows why learning is fun. While other Professor's are telling the boys to hang their heads, listen and sit down, Keating invites them to stand. He promotes freedom of thought which is the true purpose of this film, not Carpe Diem as so many believe. My favorite scene in the film is called Find Your Own Walk where Keating has the boys do a walking exercise to metaphorically demonstrate what it means to conform while also telling the boys to think for themselves. He goes beyond simply reading words from a page (which isn't bad, don't get me wrong. I love to read words off pages) but makes poetry physical through sports, classical through music, and communal like friendship. This belief of standing up is also well represented by the many shots of birds taking flight throughout the film. Robin Williams's subtle humor and authentic portrayal of Keating shines! This is easily one of his best roles.
What makes the film enjoyable to the eyes and the ears are the warm colors consistently used and the quietly reflective score. The film is full of reds and oranges and browns and seems to have an essence of autumn. Autumn is often a symbol of wisdom. Warm colors are often used to convey simple optimistic scenes or strong violent scenes, both of which exist in
this movie. Red is a color of love, passion, joy and power emphasized by Keating who is seen many a time with red in his tie, his scarf and in one scene he even wears a red sweater. Gold is a very traditional color that represents riches and tradition while orange promotes change (like the leaves in autumn), health and energy. All of these are represented in the movie. Brown and black are also warm colors and used a lot in the movie.
Keating wears red |
The score is of quiet reflection and it's simple beauty is something to behold. It provides a certain haunting quality to the film that clashes well with the religious undertones and historical setting. There are a few primary instruments being used, being the bagpipes, the flute, the harp, and the harpsichord. The bagpipes are the most prominent in the film and are known for their Scottish routes and also being used at funerals. I will return to this idea in a moment. The harp and the flute sound very naturalistic. When I was younger I used to watch an English dubbed version of an Austrian Pippi Longstocking film and in the movie the children were running away and this soft melody of a flute played as they traveled through the woods. While that movie is awful, it does hold a piece of me and does speak to this idea of using simple music to express simple emotions. The flute especially makes you feel as if you are at the school watching the trees blow in the breeze and as if you are surrounded by nature. It is a refreshing sound like drinking water on a hot day and makes you feel as if you have disconnected from all of the technology that holds you back and doesn't let you "seize the day!". The harpsichord provides a very old sound that seems to represent the school itself as it is very old and very tradition and very strict. This score very much reminds me of Dario Marianelli's score for the 2005 film Pride and Prejudice. It is so simple and beautiful and moving that it seems to transport you into this realm where you are alone in nature and in peace. I guess that is a good word for the score, peaceful.
The religious imagery in the film is very fascinating to me. Going back to the bagpipes for a moment, the film starts out with bagpipes which as I said above are often used at funerals. This leads me to believe that the film is starting out with death and ending with death, but death is different in each instance. In the beginning, the boys are all dead to themselves. By the end, they have killed their insecurities (or at least are on the way to doing so) and are becoming alive. The bagpipes are heard very loudly at the very beginning and at the very end when the credits begin. Keating himself is a Christ figure. His dangerous teachings very much embody the character of Christ who also taught very dangerous things for his time. The religious imagery becomes very heavy handed with Neal's death as he places the crown of thorns on his head. This is the only part of the film I found to move into movie-ism cliche, when Neal died. His parents reaction was shot in such a way that reminded me of comedies. Perhaps these comedies I am thinking of subconsciously were made after this film and so it wasn't cliche when it was made but the slow motion shouting felt a bit out of place. I also found Todd's snow walking to be a bit Hollywood but at the same time, that scene was also beautiful. I should also note that the film ends in winter, a season that often personifies death which ties back to the bagpipes being used.
One last thing to mention is the narrative transformation used in the movie. Narrative transformation is something used when the artist is setting up something one way and then later flipping it on the audience. In the beginning of the film we see Mr. Nolan as a respectable figure we can look up to and the boys see Keating as a joke. By the end of the film, most of the boys show an incredible respect for Keating while we as the audience see Nolan in an entirely new and almost evil light.
To put it simply, this film about poetry is executed as poetry. As a lover of novels, I often look for novel aspects in the things I immerse myself in. But the novel can also be poetic as can music and video games and even film. This movie is brilliant. It is definitely a favorite of mine. Not only is the film itself a work of art, but Robin Williams is amazing and it is about literature/poetry which is my forte. It can't get any better than this! This film definitely gets an A+ from me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)