Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the new film from the magic world of Harry Potter turned out to be just not the same, to say the least. It definitely leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions.
Finally! After the eight Harry Potter, or should we say, Magic films of the wizard and witches community in Britain, without, of course, a notable US American movie face, finally a magical story taking place on American soil. And with it comes the loveable accent of the US magic population, a before ever so neglected part of J. K. Rowling's fantasy universe. A few details of continuity might have been overlooked storywise but everything is done straight forward and amiable. So what?
Again, Eddie Redmayne shows us his humble demeanour which he also exhibited in movies like The Theory of Everything. You know, the not-looking-at-you-but-only-peering-up-shyly-and-quickly-looking-away-again mode. The servility, not in a bad way though, but still so modest, self-effacing, unobtrusive, even meek that it hurts after a while. But do we want this manner of a hero in a story? Again and again?
Besides the disappointing fact that Redmayne obviously has less variety in acting than what we might have hoped for, the problem with the film could be that we do not know anything about the magic world in the US. We have no slightest notion who all these authorities are that we are confronted with. We never had the chance to visit Ilvermorny School for Witchcraft and Wizardry in order to learn it. Therefore, while not knowing the basics, we also do not know about good and evil in the US magic society, or its other shades. For example, do they really have to import a villain in order to fight one?
So, not knowing nothing, we can hardly fear for the people we scarcely get to know or be angry with one or the other, or engage in a movement for their rights. It's just not our magic world anymore, that we Muggles had gotten some insight to, since that was so much connected to Hogwarts and Hogsmead and Platform 9 3/4 or even the British scenery and it's life style that it just doesn't feel like being back in the magic world at all somehow.
It's hard to find ourselves in NYC now, even if we travelled back in time a few centuries. So, if at all, the feeling only comes back when special effects put a completely destroyed city back together again.
Yes, of course the story introduces us to some of the characters. Still, the most impressive character is not the leading one who shyly smiles about, nor the villain who seems to run around not knowing what he's doing, but the only Muggle, who is not even allowed to stay friends with us since he is forced to forget everything in the end. Could that memorable bite not have made him immune to the rain of forgetfulness so that the magic world would have to accept him? After all, he is the true hero facing this chaotic world of witches and wizards with bravery and toughness.
Which brings us back to the US magic community of which we know so little. Who is who, and why is this or that important? Or which house would we have been in, and what do the houses stand for at Ilvermorny? And most of all, is Tina, the most boring witch of all, now the master of the Elder Wand? If only there was a proper book, a novel, to back up the film's story gaps.
You might now argue that the most important thing about this film is not the characters, or even the story but the magic creatures. An argument which of course the title would underline. Yes, we might have been eager to meet some of the creatures, and they are very sweet, everyone will admit that. But the creatures without a great hero and a great story would make the film a very extended double Care of Magical Creatures lesson. Then our answer would be very clear: When have we ever given Rowling the idea that Care of Magical Creatures was our favourite subject?
© 2016
Sunday, October 5. 2014
What's Wrong With "Closer"
It's the photographs. They're not a lie after all, they are not even accessory parts. They are obsolete. Yes, there are a few fine moments when photography, and even its product, is beautifully strong in this picture. But in the end, it doesn't really matter that Anna is a photographer. She could be a hair stylist, or of any other profession to do with getting close to people. Also Dan's profession is not of much consequence, if you miss out that, at the final scene of the movie you could imagine that he could be composing an obituary for her - for "Alice". Especially when he finds out that he didn't even know her real name. And there is only a tiny little bit of irony in Larry giving Dan information about "Alice's" whereabouts on a perscription.
But it's the photographs that don't matter at all while the film contuinues, and so this metaphor isn't one, and cannot justify the title. They're hardly built into the story in the beginning, and they're practically non-existent, at the end.
But it's the photographs that don't matter at all while the film contuinues, and so this metaphor isn't one, and cannot justify the title. They're hardly built into the story in the beginning, and they're practically non-existent, at the end.
Tuesday, January 28. 2014
America's Sweethearts
Trying to describe why this movie may be better than what most critics think is like telling a joke that begins with: "A man goes to his Rabbi...".
Of course, it is easy to say that what is told here is not really Hollywood. Of course not.
On the other hand, why not? Funny is mostly nothing but an exaggeration, therefore why not take it as a satire. Many films play with this sort of satire, even if only in certain dialogues. Such as references to actors, Oscar winners and movies, as well as the lengendary comment of a "model" telling her actor boyfriend that she needed a shower and had to throw up before she could go out, as in "In an Out".
So why not?
A separated couple, both actors, have to reunite in order to promote their latest movie. Why not? This has definitely happened before, but why would we want to know if it wasn't at all fun(ny). This is. Both ways.
So. What more do you want? America's Sweetheaerts has love, revenge, silly jokes, good ones, even, and also envy, and jealousy, humour, wisdom, slapstick, serious moments, covered up with humour again, and, on top of everything, many, many quotable lines.
Gwen: Kiki? What was that movie called?
Kiki: I don't give a shit!
Eddie: No, that wasn't it.
This was an example. And here's another one: Life i a cookie.
Just like this movie.
Of course, it is easy to say that what is told here is not really Hollywood. Of course not.
On the other hand, why not? Funny is mostly nothing but an exaggeration, therefore why not take it as a satire. Many films play with this sort of satire, even if only in certain dialogues. Such as references to actors, Oscar winners and movies, as well as the lengendary comment of a "model" telling her actor boyfriend that she needed a shower and had to throw up before she could go out, as in "In an Out".
So why not?
A separated couple, both actors, have to reunite in order to promote their latest movie. Why not? This has definitely happened before, but why would we want to know if it wasn't at all fun(ny). This is. Both ways.
So. What more do you want? America's Sweetheaerts has love, revenge, silly jokes, good ones, even, and also envy, and jealousy, humour, wisdom, slapstick, serious moments, covered up with humour again, and, on top of everything, many, many quotable lines.
Gwen: Kiki? What was that movie called?
Kiki: I don't give a shit!
Eddie: No, that wasn't it.
This was an example. And here's another one: Life i a cookie.
Just like this movie.
Sunday, January 16. 2011
The Male Illusion
In literature, a tomboy is defined as a girl who behaves like a boy, boisterous, freethinking and independent. There are a lot of very different characters in book and film that have been defined as tomboys, such as "Georgina Kirrin", better known as "George", from "The Famous Five" by Enid Blyton, "Jean Louise Finch", better known as "Scout", from "To Kill A Mockingbird","Watts" from "Some Kind of Wonderful", "Idgie Threadgoode" from "Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café", and, nowadays, "Juno MacGuff" from "Juno".
Well, what do these characters have in common? For starters, the movies pass the "Bechdel Test", because there are more than two females - not necessarily already women - they do have names, they talk with other females, and not about men.
But after all, being tomboys, they are not regarded as "really" female, they are some kind of sexless footprint of a female, and of course, often, there is homosexuality involved, OMG! Idgie does have, in the book more openly than in the film, of course, a lesbian lover, and so did Harper Lee who formed with "To Kill a Mockingbird" childhood memories into a book. With George, we do not know, because we never see her grow up, and with Juno, we accept that she might even be too independent to perpetuate the expected stereotype, so she is allowed to have a boyfriend and only befriend the adoptive mother of her child.
So to sum up the clichés, the characters do not really pass the Bechdel Test, most of them have homosexuell tendencies, and therefore they are boyish.
It does not seem to make any sense to anybody to say that these characters are more womanly than any other variety of this sex, since they know what they want, and they do what they want, and they know what they are doing. They are independent, because a woman is not defined by dependence, they are freethinking, because a woman is not defined by narrow-mindedness, and they are boisterous, because a woman is not defined by alignment. Their clothes, hairstyle and attitude are part of their personal approach as a woman, and, most of all, they do not need men to define themselves.
But of course, we have been taught differently; in most movies, tomboys do eventually give in to the charms of some idiot boy who did not even realise they were there before they were gone, somehow probably a fantasy of these boys - to be secretely loved, and to "cure" a lesbian.
Isn't that sweet? After all, a tomboy is nothing but a male illusion.
Well, what do these characters have in common? For starters, the movies pass the "Bechdel Test", because there are more than two females - not necessarily already women - they do have names, they talk with other females, and not about men.
But after all, being tomboys, they are not regarded as "really" female, they are some kind of sexless footprint of a female, and of course, often, there is homosexuality involved, OMG! Idgie does have, in the book more openly than in the film, of course, a lesbian lover, and so did Harper Lee who formed with "To Kill a Mockingbird" childhood memories into a book. With George, we do not know, because we never see her grow up, and with Juno, we accept that she might even be too independent to perpetuate the expected stereotype, so she is allowed to have a boyfriend and only befriend the adoptive mother of her child.
So to sum up the clichés, the characters do not really pass the Bechdel Test, most of them have homosexuell tendencies, and therefore they are boyish.
It does not seem to make any sense to anybody to say that these characters are more womanly than any other variety of this sex, since they know what they want, and they do what they want, and they know what they are doing. They are independent, because a woman is not defined by dependence, they are freethinking, because a woman is not defined by narrow-mindedness, and they are boisterous, because a woman is not defined by alignment. Their clothes, hairstyle and attitude are part of their personal approach as a woman, and, most of all, they do not need men to define themselves.
But of course, we have been taught differently; in most movies, tomboys do eventually give in to the charms of some idiot boy who did not even realise they were there before they were gone, somehow probably a fantasy of these boys - to be secretely loved, and to "cure" a lesbian.
Isn't that sweet? After all, a tomboy is nothing but a male illusion.
(Page 1 of 3, totaling 10 entries)
next page »
