Archive for category Music

CHILDHOOD REVISITED – WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY

Screenshot from Willy Wonka

Wonka and his infamous "pimp" cane.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory – (1971)

Director: Mel Stuart
Starring: Gene Wilder, Jack Alberston, Peter Ostrum
Screenplay by: Roald Dahl, David Seltzer

(I apologize for the delays with the Childhood Revisited saga. It’s been a tough couple of months, and as I started working on 2 side projects, as well as providing the occasional write-up for Destructoid [along with the day job], which left me struggling to do weekly writeups. So while I won’t be getting back into the weekly C.R. reviews, I’ll try and provide one or two every month. No promises, as I also like to write about other things. :) )

I had the recent pleasure of watching The Fantastic Mr. Fox, which was a lot more fun than I expected. And with my recent foray into all things animated, light, whimsical and fun, I thought it would be fitting to try re-watching Willy Wonka. (I wonder if I should review James and the Giant Peach at some point.) It was supposed to be a Valentine’s Day write-up, then an Easter one, but I missed all those dates, so now it’s simply a regular one. I’m a bit rusty with my analysis of these things, so forgive me if it seems a bit “off.”

NOSTALGIC LENS: Every so often, there’s a not-so-subtle push to rear kids via their (supposedly) most-loved passion: candy. This and books like The Chocolate Touch used thinly-veiled metaphors to teach lessons through the delight and, uh, power of confectionery. I liked candy, but didn’t LOVE it, so I pretty much tossed aside the lessons as pointless to me. As for the movie itself, I remembered bits and pieces, but nothing that stood out, save for the chocolate river scene. Oddly enough, the part that freaks people out the most – the psychedelic boat ride – was completely gone from my memory.

DOES IT HOLD UP: I love the 70s, completely ironically – from its overall sense of fashion and style, to its endearing exuberance to its cheesy TV shows, lame game show concept, overwrought music, and “whatever” dance styles in vogue (the commitment to these entertainment styles is what makes them stand out). 70s films were, overall, of two types: deep in a bizarre sense, and comical in an ironic, detached sense. One of the reasons Star Wars stood out was that its blockbuster sensibilities was so novel and straightforward and played everything real.

Willy Wonka makes great use of the latter aesthetic, being such a whimsical, devil-may-care type of film. I’ve never read the original novel, but even I can gather how much it deviated from it. (Apparently Dahl hated it.) It’s a musical, yes, but even through its melodies and comedy, the film just breaks from its original narrative not only for song cues, but for random gags attributed to a specific point in the story. It’s two insane stories in one: a international assault-search for golden tickets in Wonka bars, and a tour of Wonka’s eccentric factory with goofy yet semi-dark consequences, and during each section, we’re treated to almost variety-show-like moments that seem to take in the full extent of filmic styles of the time. The separate beats seem off but are remarkably held together by a strong and coherent style, a fun cast, and a catchy batch of tunes.

This ten minute clip is the perfect epitome to showcase what I mean. The slightly awkward “child in the chocolate” part is undermined by goofy faces and Wonka’s witticisms – which is then undermined again when he is sucked up the tube into god-knows-where. Scary? Not for long – a goofy whistle and a Oompah Loompah song calms the nerves and teaches you a quiet lesson, kiddies. That’s fine. And then it’s a boat ride into a drug-fueled TUNNEL OF HORROR, because why not?

Then it’s back to the fun stuff.

Willy Wonka is a huge risk of a film, because there’s no reason for anything to happen the way it does. There no need for the music numbers, or the side jokes, or the abject weird tunnel scene or any number of visual elements; nor is Wonka supposed to be a laureate of classic literature and poetry. But it’s there. And if there’s one thing that the internet has taught me, it’s that if you’re going to do something for no reason, you might as well do it amazingly, like if you were to, oh, let’s say, do a live-action version of the song “After Today” from A Goofy Movie.

Of course, not all of it is random, and I’m happy to say that the parts that do matter are just as great as the parts that don’t. Gene Wilder is a great Wonka, that perfect mystery of a character who’s both carefree and careless, who carries the film during ever dark and light moment with nary a concern in the world. All the children were surprisingly great, even being mostly one note, although I will give special mention to Veruca Salt, played by Julie Dawn Cole, for being such a great spoiled brat and really owning the character. The set design and cinematography is exquisite, the gags still hold up, and the music is exceedingly endearing: tell me you don’t want to sing along to “Pure Imagination”:

Still, its dated aesthetic is still apparent, and as I mentioned earlier, certain gags come off a bit stilted and awkward. (And that ending is so tacked on and rushed that it’s really disappointing). But overall, its enjoyable and, unlike other musicals, the songs aren’t way too long.

IN A NUTSHELL: Want makes this movie truly work is that, despite its visual datedness, it’s still really a delight and would definitely hold up for children today (which I couldn’t quite say for something like The Goonies or Wizard of Oz.) It’s emphasis on kids and their behavior, against the backdrop of sugary goodness (which will NEVER grow old) makes Willy Wonka a particularly, yet truly, timeless classic.

NEXT FILM: Cats Don’t Dance

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • LiveJournal
  • StumbleUpon
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Fark
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

, ,

4 Comments

BLACK MAN RAGE – “WHAT DA PROBLEM IS?” #1

[Ed. note: new feature where I bitch about something something.]

Oh, Ye, you incorrigible gay fish.

The innocuous event that even shut-in hermits with no access to fresh water have heard about is exploding all over the news and internet. Kanye felt it absolutely necessary to let the world know that Beyonce’s video was “totes” better than Swift’s video, which was so brave and courageous (He did it on stage! In front of tweens! You know how hard they are to please! Especially without Auto-tune!) that it earned him the Prestigious Presidential award of “Jackass of the Generation of this Decade.”

Of course, as the title of the feature suggests, I’m here to tell you the REAL reason people are raging, gossiping, and talking about this more than, let’s say, health care-something-or-other. It’s not about the interruption, the public perception of out-of-control celebrity rage, or Kanye’s batshit-insanity (look at his fucking hair! Clearly, the guy needs psychiatric help). No, dear readers. I’ll tell you what this is about.

No one knows what the hell West was talking about.

The tirade comes during a bizarre celebration of some sort of archaic nonsense so irrelevant that even its mere presence is kind of a scientific anomaly (but by no means proof of God’s existence; it somehow even discredits it). I’m not even sure what those colored, interlaced lines represent in that exact sequence. MTV’S VMA Awards? What’s an MTV? What the hell are VMAs? What do MTV and VMAs have to do with each other? And we’re awarding this? Can I get one?

And during this hodgepodge of teenage delight (not of the pre-marital kind! That’s for our vampire frienemies), as Taylor Swift received her statuette (for, I assume, having a last name that’s synonymous with “quick” or “David the Gnome’s getaway animal”), Ye proceeds to hop on stage and sprout a series of words that, while individually make sense, collectively sound like the insane ramblings of a Vietnam vet who really didn’t go to Vietnam but just has schizophrenia and pines for a magical, bizarre world of these, I assume, psychotic visions of hallucinations referred to as “music videos”. Buh? THIS IS CRAZY TALK.

Kanye might as well have interrupted the TEEN TALK TBH AWARD show, where TBH stands for absolutely nothing that anyone actually knows or particularly cares about, and screamed “I’m gonna let ya finish yo’ thing, but that sperm waster chick over there has one of the hottest widgets this side of Pleasantville.” Utter nonsense. We’re still trying to figure out WHAT IT ALL MEANS in the greater sense of things. Beyonce’s video? You mean one of her home videos? Did she release a porn video? Is video some feminist term meaning “aura”?

But, fuck it. Let’s swallow the Adderall and pretend for a second we all know what a VMA is and spent the man-hours watching them. Which one would indeed be the better one? Well, I’ll be the decider here, and ultimately determine which video is indeed the “hottest”.

Taylor Swift – “You Belong to Me”

Oh, nerd girl, you’ll never get the guy unless you take off your glasses. Nothing kills a boner faster than eyewear. I can imagine that conversation.

Guy: Hey, baby, how abut we—“OH GOD WHAT IS THAT ON YOUR FACE, A DEADLY SPIDER?”

Girl: They’re my glasses.

Guy: *PUKES*

That, by the way, takes place over window-tag via shapies and notebooks. Instant messenger just lacks the “shitty handwriting” authenticity and love. And PHONE CALLS? FUCK THAT.

As for the song? Meh. I probably could play that guitar rift, and I don’t know the difference between a guitar and a latte. (I will give props to the fact that the music actually relates to the video. I’ve never seen that happen before, ever.)

Beyonce – “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on it)”

Ooh, yeah! 90s dance routines with 2000 editing techniques! It’s as if the intro to In Living Color was in black and white (the goddamn irony!) and shot by the Saw director(s). And what shitty, shitty choreography. Usher, show her how it’s done, please.

….

What, you played out, too? Damn.

As for the song? Meh. I guess the single ladies like it. Was this the song Stephanine Meyer was listening too before she envisioned celibate vampires? No, it was Muse, but I’d like to think she’s all about interracial musical tastes.

So, which music video is the better of the two? The answer may surprise you.

Beastie Boys – “Sabotage”

This was, is, and will be the best music video ever made, ever.

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • LiveJournal
  • StumbleUpon
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Fark
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

,

3 Comments

CHILDHOOD REVISITED – AN AMERICAN TAIL: FIEVEL GOES WEST

OM NOM NOM

OM NOM NOM

An American Tail: Fievel Goes West – (1991)

Director: Phil Nibbelink, Simon Wells
Starring: Phillip Glasser, James Stewart, Dom DeLuise, John Cleese
Screenplay by: David Kirschner, Charles Swenson, Flint Dille

Goodbye, Don Bluth; hello… uh, someone not named Don Bluth! Due to creative differences between Bluth and Steven Spielberg, the latter was forced to rely on another former Disney animator, Phil Nibbelink, and the grandson of H.G. Wells, Simon Wells, to direct this sequel. Sounds like an odd combination to be sure; indeed, financially, this movie bombed at the box office.

Was it because it sucked? Probably, although it was also up against The Addams Family (future CHILDHOOD REVISITED feature) and Beauty and the Beast, so it didn’t exactly have an easy time during its theater run. Still, there does seem to be a small, cultural following, or more appropriate, a small, cultural appreciation of the movie. However, there seems to be another small following that dislikes the movie, due to the fact that it simply isn’t “Bluthian”. So, now it comes down to this: is this a good film or not? Does the first movie win this battle, or is this an example of the few times that the sequel wins the day? I shall decide, and my decision will be law.

NOSTALGIC LENS: I have to admit I enjoyed this movie more than the first one when I was young. The animation was quite lovely, and I adored the music in particular; unlike other animated films, where the songs seem forced in as a time-waster and Oscar bait, Fievel Goes West maintained an exciting energy with their songs that truly appealed to me—and this is from someone that tends to hate music in his movies. Overall, I had fun with it, which netted several rentals from my neighborhood video store.

DOES IT HOLD UP: Aside from the transitions, which neither movie does well in an capacity, I have to say this: everything that the first movie fails at the second one does well, and everything the second movie fails at the first movie does well.

From a nostalgic standpoint, I can see why I would watch this movie so often as a child; however, it’s hard not to notice its flaws. The most glaring one is the sound. Fievel, our main character, again, fluctuates wildly in tone and delivery, as if recorded from two wildly different sound studios. Mama Mousekewitz sounds completely different from the first movie (despite being voiced by the same person), and some of the minor character voices are just all over the place. The odd thing is that the voice work is genuinely good; even Jimmy Stewart, who Spielberg personally coached, did a decent job. It just seems more like when the dubbing was placed, the recordists never bothered to fine-tune all of it—just some, but not all.

The story, plot-wise, is actually quite similar to the first one. A mouse family, disappointed with the life they currently live in America, grabs an opportunity to take a trip out West to start anew. Tone-wise, however, Fievel Goes West utilizes a wackier, somewhat sillier execution of events, which works perfectly sometimes, and falls short during other moments. As I mentioned previously, Bluth’s animation is not that clean nor strong; but he at the very least somehow manages to create an atmosphere, an overarching “sense” that works. Such a feeling, however, doesn’t exist here; instead, this movie reminds me a bit of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and its penchant for goofy moments among serious ones, minus Zemeckis’ careful control.

Let’s look at the movie’s opening scenes:

It’s surprisingly strong for something so loose. The individual cuts here are somewhat smoother and more coherent than the first one, and the slow disintegration of Fievel’s fantasy is strangely potent. In fact, the opening scene and the final scenes of the movie are incredibly well done, invoking a more genuine movie-specific atmosphere over that broad Bluthian feel.

It’s not a feeling that lasts long though:


(Note about sound: at 4:22, that sure cannot be Glasser. Or maybe it is, after a good swift kick in the balls).

The chaos here is sloppy and random, and once again, Feivel’s youthful bravery seems unbalanced. He challenges the giant cat to a fight, only to realize he bit off more than he can chew. But, er, shouldn’t he have realized that beforehand? It’s not like that children’s desire to fight King Kong suddenly goes away after realizing how big the ape is. Hell, the size tends to get kids to want to fight him MORE. (Stupidly, or course, but all the same). Oh, and apparently the hat that Papa gave Fievel in the first movie can turn inside out in a cowboy hat. In Soviet Russia, cowboy hat wears your hat? I got nothing.

Chaos is not this movie’s strong suit. Tiger in particular has a number of incidents where he runs into dog after dog after dog; aside from the fact that the dogs aren’t anthropomorphized like the cats or mice (something that always grinds my gears in animated works), the over-wrought efforts to make it crazy just come off overbearing and goofy. It’s worth a chuckle but ultimately what could have been funny just falls flat.

However, there is one very, very bright spot: John Cleese as Cat R. Waul. He’s absolutely gold in this movie, if you can tell by the second clip. His causally delivered commands and his British-to-Southern drawl are hilarious; and it only gets better from there. He draws a line between idealized sophistication and animalistic instinct, but neither goes into the extreme, like say, Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective, which works beautifully here.

Waul’s plan ultimately delves into talking the mice to move out West, where they will be manipulated not only to build the town, but also to be blindly ensnared in a mousetrap, to be made into mouseburgers. Yum. Fievel finds out (thanks to his indomitable desire to run into the nearest dangerous situation), but falls of the train thanks to Chula the spider (a IMMENSELY forgettable character if I ever saw one. Not even John Lovitz, who voiced the arachnid terribly, could make him stand out.). Fievel lost in the desert is actually a nice couple of scenes; you really feel bad for the little guy, despite the fact that it’s essentially his own fault.

There’s also a few enduring moments with Tanya, Fievel’s sister. She longs for the stage but her voice is not appreciated by New Yorkers; but out West, Cat R. Waul is absolutely enamored by it (“Dreams to Dream” I think is a better song than “Somewhere Out There,” but it may be because it’s sung better here.) He convinces Miss Kitty (the female cat from the first clip) to prep her for the stage; Tanya breaks out and performs an amazing choreographed version of “The Girl I Left Behind”, and wows the audience and herself. There’s a theme of solidarity here, of cats and mice working together; and while Waul exploits it in order to ultimately eat them, Kitty and Tiger seems to genuinely believe in the idea. Tanya also in times learns about the artificiality of fame. Or something—that lesson doesn’t come off that clearly.

There’s also a couple of very mediocre-to-stupid scenes involving mirages, Tiger confused as a god by Indian mice, and a montage of Tiger learning how to be a tough dog by a Wylie Burp, voiced by the late James Stewart (man, it’s unfortunate that so many older actors pass away after voicing a cartoon character). Still, it “works” somehow, especially in the context of a young Fievel trying to desperately convince everyone of the danger, but no one believing him. I can understand that feeling; and that concept — of children and their relationship to real, genuine threats (and the adults that will/won’t listen) — segues perfectly into my next two movies.

IN A NUTSHELL: Other then adoring Cat R. Waul for the most part, I can’t really say this movie was that good. Neither the first one nor the second one wowed me in any way. They’re the same, but different, and it’s really hard to judge them in relation to each other. Both films have really great moments and really terrible ones; both have great technical aspects and shitty ones. If forced to choose, I’d have to say I’d prefer Fievel Goes West, if only because of the charismatic villain and the somewhat catchier music (although to be honest, it isn’t as good as I remember it).

August 31st: Jumanji
September 7th: The Goonies

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • LiveJournal
  • StumbleUpon
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Fark
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

1 Comment

Easy AdSense by Unreal