Monday, January 26, 2015

Classics: A Review of Sleeping Beauty By Lauren Ennis

In keeping with my promise to accept any requests that come my way, this week I’ll be honoring a request from our own Film Junkie, who asked that I review a Disney princess movie. At first this seemed like an easy enough request, until I realized how difficult it would be to pick which princess film to review. Growing up, my favorite Disney princess was always Belle, and I loved Beauty and the Beast so much that I managed to drag my family to see it a  total of eight times when it was in theaters (now that’s true love!). Because Beauty and the Beast, and many of the more recent princess films were debuted during the 1980’s and 1990’s, however, my generation grew up with the characters in those films, which has led to a firestorm of analysis written by critics and bloggers on those films. As a result of their iconic status, it was difficult to find something to say about a princess film that hasn’t already been said in countless ways already. In order to add a personal touch to my review, I started focusing on Disney’s earlier films, which are often lost amongst the long list of Disney’s more recent efforts. I finally settled on a film that always fascinated me as a child, but also left me with a sense that I was missing the greater meaning behind the story; Sleeping Beauty.
I'd like to see Angelina do that!
The familiar plot follows the fairy tale that it is based upon with King Stefan (Taylor Holmes) and his queen celebrating the birth of their daughter, Aurora (Mary Costa), after years of struggling to have a child. The entire kingdom is invited to the princess’ christening, which is interrupted by the unexpected arrival of the wicked fairy, Maleficent (Eleanor Audley). Furious that she was not invited to the event, Maleficent curses the child, casting a spell which states says that if Aurora pricks her finger on a spinning wheel by sunset on her sixteenth birthday she will die instantly. Fortunately, three good fairies who were chosen to be the princess’ fairy godmothers (Verna Felton and Barbara Jo Allen) are also present and plucky fairy Merryweather (Barbara Luddy) bestows an invaluable gift by altering the spell. After Merryweather’s intervention, the spell instead says that a spindle’s prick will make Aurora fall into a deep sleep rather than die, but that she can only be awoken from that sleep by true love’s kiss. Terrified for their daughter’s safety, the king and queen order every spinning wheel in the kingdom burned and ban the manufacturing of new ones. Even after their decree, however, the king and queen still fear Maleficent’s curse and send Aurora away to be raised by the good fairies. Sixteen years pass and Aurora, now living under the alias of peasant girl Briar Rose, has grown into a beautiful young woman. As ‘Rose’s’ birthday approaches the fairies celebrate their impending victory over Maleficent’s curse, only to find that their adopted daughter has no interest in returning to her former life. After years of being raised to live a simple life with her godmothers, Aurora is in no way prepared for the shock of learning that she is a princess and bound to the duties of her position. Making matters even more difficult, she has begun a romance with a ‘peasant boy’, unaware that he is actually Prince Phillip (Bill Shirley), to whom she has been betrothed since birth. Disillusioned by her godmothers’ lies and the belief that she can never see her sweetheart again, Aurora lashes out, leaving herself perfect prey for the temptation of Maleficent’s cunning deceit.

This is truly one of Disney’s most unique films in that the company adhered to the traditions of the origin and time period in which the story is set. While Disney’s other princesses are designed to fit the fashion, musical, and social trends of the eras in which their films are released, Aurora and the rest of the cast were instead based upon the trends of the medieval era in which their story takes place. As a result, the film’s animation gorgeously recreates the effect of a medieval tapestry, which further reinforces the idea that the tale is a storybook brought to life. The singing in this film is also uncharacteristically limited as Disney’s staff relied upon the iconic score of Tchaikovsky’s 1890 ballet of the same name. Through the use of the ballet score, the story retains a sense of timelessness without overwhelming the story and dialogue. There are only three songs that are actually song by characters (with several instances of an off-screen chorus) throughout the film, which is a distinct departure from the Broadway standard that is applied to most other Disney films. Two of those songs are beautifully sung by Aurora and serve to provide insight into her character that the audience missed during those years in her life that the script skipped over. While the lyrics are not terribly complex, they do reveal that she is a dreamy girl who is lonely for the company of people her own age and that she has begun to experience her first yearnings for romance. This limited insight proves surprisingly crucial to the audience when she rebels against the fairies after they forbid her to see the ‘peasant boy’ later in the film. The third song is the oddly placed requisite Disney drinking song (remember ‘Pink Elephants’ and ‘Gaston’?), ‘Skumps’, which fails to propel the plot forward, but does provide memorable comic relief. The film also contains some of the most unique action scenes in the Disney canon courtesy of Philip’s battle against the shape-shifting Maleficent.

While there are many things to admire in Sleeping Beauty, there is also a very distinct flaw; the film’s lack of emphasis upon its central couple. The three good fairies are each given distinct personalities complete with strengths and weaknesses, despite their common magical powers and shared goal. Similarly, Philip and Aurora’s fathers, King Stefan and King Hubert (Bill Thompson), are both lovable and have a believable friendship, with King Stefan playing the level-headed straight man to King Hubert’s short-fused and bombastic comedy. Maleficent is also one of the few Disney villains to be portrayed as truly evil and without any redeeming qualities. Despite her lack of likability, however, Maleficent is immensely watchable through her equally expressive animation and voice acting and consistently witty dialogue.
All the family a girl could need

In the midst of such well-developed characters, Aurora and Philip come across as underwritten and generic. While Philip’s changing facial expression was a first for a Disney prince, he lacks the dimension of later princes and his ‘knight in shining armor’ characterization leaves him devoid of any quirks or flaws that would make him stand out. Similarly, there is no denying that Aurora is grossly underwritten, with the only title character of a film with less lines being the mute Dumbo. The only explanation for such negligent characterization would be if the film is not meant to focus on Aurora despite her role as the title heroine. Upon closer observation, it becomes obvious that all of the central action is between the four fairies, with the kings reduced to mere comic relief and Aurora and Philip standing in as plot devices.

This begs the question of why the story’s focus remains upon Aurora’s godmothers and the looming presence of their enemy, Maleficent. My theory is that the central struggle of the story is not Aurora and Philip’s journey to love, but instead the classical battle between good and evil. In many ways, the story could be viewed as a fairy tale take on Faust and its modern interpretations (The Devil and Daniel Webster, Cabin in the Cotton, Bedazzled, Don’t Tempt Me), in which the devil battles with the agents of heaven for ownership of the soul of a mortal. While such morality tales may seem to have little to do with Sleeping Beauty, closer observation reveals the many clues that Disney scattered throughout the film. The first is the fact that Maleficent’s role as a ‘wicked’ or rogue fairy mirrors the backstory that the Bible provides for Lucifer as a renegade angel who was damned to Hell for trying to replace God. Maleficent’s design reinforces this notion with her Satanic horns, flowing black robes, deathly pallor, and vampire-esque ability to disappear and reappear at will. Her minions also appear to be based upon illustrations of the demons of hell, which is further emphasized by her line that by opposing her Philip will face “me and all the powers of Hell”.  Beyond her appearance, Maleficent consistently refers to herself as the “mistress of all evil” and takes an obvious delight in causing pain and misery in those around her. Although Maleficent states that she curses Aurora as an act of vengeance for some slight on King Stefan’s part, a revenge arc doesn’t align with the rest of the story as she would have attained her revenge just as adequately if she allowed Aurora to return to her parents a grown woman who is a complete stranger to them. Therefore, her malicious activities hold no real motive unless Aurora's death were to provide a direct benefit to Maleficent. Despite her despicable behavior, however, Maleficent also possesses a devilish charisma which has made her a fan favorite for generations. She uses this charm to tempt Aurora when she is at her most vulnerable and hypnotize her into pricking her hand on the spinning wheel. This scene plays out much in the same way as Eve’s fall in Genesis with Maleficent fulfilling the role of the serpent by tempting a heroine who has lost her trust in the loving guidance of those around her with a seemingly ordinary object. When the princess pricks her finger she does so by her own action in a pseudo-suicide, which directly results in her falling victim to the sleeping spell. Under the influence of the spell, she is forced to languish in eternal sleep that performs the same function as purgatory, which suicide victims were traditionally said to be banished to, as she helplessly waits in limbo until her soul gains redemption. The final clue arrives at the film’s conclusion when Philip finally releases Aurora from her sleep and the couple celebrate their impending marriage by dancing as the ballroom slowly fades away and is replaced by clouds as both prince and princess have earned their place in heaven. Beyond the plot, Disney also strategically places other biblical references throughout the script including Philip’s horse, Samson, sharing the name of a biblical hero, and Philip arming himself against Maleficent’s dark powers with a ‘sword of truth’ and a ‘shield of virtue’, two traits consistently referred to as weapons against the vice represented by the devil. Another key detail is that of all the days that Maleficent could curse Aurora she chooses to do so on the day of the child's christening; a religious ceremony in which a child is cleansed of original sin,  If you follow this theory, the lack of emphasis upon Aurora and Philip makes perfect sense as they are not the central players that the title leads us to believe, but actually pawns in a battle between celestial forces that they hold no control over.
The most chemistry these two show...is when she's unconscious
While it may not be one of the most progressive or popular Disney princess films, Sleeping Beauty is certainly one of the studio’s most unique. Through its timeless music and animation the film manages to transport viewers to another time and place where we are able to believe in magic and the power of true love. It’s excellent supporting characters provide enough entertainment to almost make up for the lack of development of the two leads and the subtext of the story adds a darkness that rivals its recent live-action spin-off, Maleficent. For childhood nostalgia with a dark streak, or a chance to revisit the fantasies we all had once upon a dream, I highly recommend Sleeping Beauty.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

A review of "Candyman 2: Farewell to Flesh"

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A review of “Candyman 2: A Farewell to Flesh”

By: Brian Cotnoir


     Am I really reviewing a sequel film for the second consecutive week?  Oh well, this what I decided to watch this week, so here I am to talk about it.  How awesome is the movie “Candyman”?  I wouldn’t say that I’m a fan of the film, but I am definitely a fan of the character.  Daniel Robataille aka the Candyman has to be one of my Favorite Movie Villains and one of the Most Underappreciated Horror movie icons of All-Time.  A lot of that has to do with actor Tony Todd’s terrifying and sinister performance.  He just makes the character so interesting that I want to know everything about him...yet, Candyman’s ultimate flaw is that his background story is not established concretely, and there are dozens of questions that fan and other movie viewers have about his origins.  Well fortunately for us, some of those questions were answered in it’s 1995 sequel “Candyman 2: Farewell to Flesh”.       
The film opens up in New Orleans with a recap of the Candyman legend being told by Professor Philip Purcell (the only recurring character besides Candyman from the first film).  After the book signing, Purcell runs into a man named Ethan Tarrant, who claims that he betrayed his father years ago, and it resulted in his father’s death.  After Purcell is physically attacked by Ethan inside of a bar, he rushes into the bathroom to splash some cold water on his face and make sure that he didn’t suffer any personal injuries.  Purcell turns up dead, and Ethan is accused of committing the murder.  Ethan claims that he did, it but his sister Annie—a school teacher—doesn’t believe him.  After pressuring her brother, Ethan confesses that he believes it was the mythical and mysterious Candyman who murdered Purcell.  Annie can’t understand why her brother would take the fall for some mythical creature, and decides to do some investigating.  She learns more about Candyman’s legend from her students, and again writes his legend off as nothing more than a silly little ghost story, but once one of her students goes missing she begins to wonder if Candyman is more than just a legend.                               
Oh so he's not going to sing a song about Willy Wonka?
    So what I like about “Candyman 2: Farewell to Flesh” is we did get more of the Candyman’s background, at times this film felt more like a prequel than a sequel.  Tony Todd is still terrifying and still phenomenal in his role as the Candyman, and the story is better than in the first “Candyman” film; at least in my opinion. However, the film does have its flaws.  Part of the allure of Todd’s Candyman in the first film was we didn’t really see him on screen a lot, and he didn’t have a lot of lines, so that made me more interested in finding out about him.  Now, while I was happy to get more of the Candyman’s background story, I just feel like Tony Todd was shown too much in this film, and was given way too much dialogue.  Every time Todd spoke in “Candyman” it was intense and spine-tingling.  Now the more he speaks in “Candyman 2: Farewell to Flesh” the less intense his words become, and he’s just not as scary.  There was also this random Canjun DJ whose voice could be heard throughout the film, but he wasn’t really narrating, and I can’t figure out why they chose to use him so much in the film, because his presence does not affect the plot in anyway.  Like at least the DJ character in the movie “The Warriors” served a purpose as to why she was in the film, but the DJ character in “Candyman 2” serves no purpose.  He doesn’t help Annie in anyway, he’s not revealed to be the one character who knows how to stop the Candyman, hell they don’t even make him like a lackey character whose being controlled by the Candyman to mislead and taunt the main characters...he’s just there prattling on with his fake-a$$ Canjun accent.  I honestly wish they would’ve done away with this character all together.            
And again, this film felt like it was trying to cram too much story into just a 95 minute film.  At times, it felt like I was watching a Prequel/Origins story, and other times it felt like it was a Sequel to the first film, and still left me with a lot of question (that I hope will all be answered in the third “Candyman” film).  Not to mention a lot of the Digital and Computer Generated effects for this film were VERY primitive by today’s standards, and looked very sloppy and unprofessional. I’d say on it’s own, “Candyman 2: Farewell to Flesh” is a solid 3-out-of-5 stars.  It had a good story premise, and Tony Todd is still great as the Candyman, and if any film studio ever planned to do a reboot of the “Candyman” franchise, I would recommend that they use this films story to base the new films story off of; I think it has a lot of great ideas, and could make for a great Horror film reboot.  

Monday, January 19, 2015

Classics: A Review of The Phantom of the Opera By Lauren Ennis

Music is one of the few art forms that is able to cross social, economic, and historical barriers to be embraced by people of all kinds in all eras. Although nearly every emotion, passion, and desire can be found within the notes of music, the most common musical theme is love. This week’s film explores the obsessive love between a composer and his music that is carried over to a dangerous extent to his muse. Through a combination of lavish atmosphere, genuine emotion, and unforgettable songs 2004’s The Phantom of the Opera is a fitting ode to the power, enchantment, and seduction of music.
If nothing else, the man does have lakefront property

The story begins during an auction at the fictional Opera Populaire in 1919 Paris. During the auction, Viscount Raul de Chagny (Patrick Wilson) purchases a mysterious music box and hints at the box’s relation to some unspecified tragedy. The auctioneer then moves on to the sale of the opera house’s chandelier that caused an infamous fire in 1870. With that sale, Raul reflects upon his experiences at the opera house in the distant days of its glory, launching a flashback that lasts for the majority of the film. The flashback brings the story back to 1870 as Raul, then a new patron of the opera house, sits in on rehearsal for an upcoming production. The rehearsal ushers in several drastic changes as the owner (James Fleet) announces his stress-induced retirement, the theater’s new owners arrive (Ciaran Hinds and Simon Callow), and the reigning primadonna (Minnie Driver) walks out after a nearly fatal accident, only to be replaced by an unexpectedly talented chorus girl. The chorus girl, Christine (Emmy Rossum), is revealed to be a musical prodigy from a family of prominent musicians and Raul’s former childhood sweetheart. Christine’s debut in the lead role makes her an overnight success and prompts Raul to rekindle their acquaintance. He soon learns, however, that she is still haunted by the death of her father years earlier and is fixated upon her visits from the supposed ‘angel of music’. While Raul brushes off her visitor as childish make-believe, Christine’s angel makes an appearance that night and is revealed to be a less than heavenly presence. The ‘angel’ is actually the mysterious figure known as the ‘phantom of the opera’ (Gerard Butler), a masked man whose facial deformities have forced him to find refuge in the catacombs beneath the opera house. The phantom then confesses his love for her and reveals that it was his sabotage of the previous primadonna that led to Christine being cast in the production.  Although flattered by his attentions, the phantom’s violent temper and escalating obsession with her leads her to question where her loyalties lie. Torn between the tormented genius of the phantom and the stable comfort of Raul, she is ultimately forced to find her own voice at the risk of her career, freedom, and even her life.

Although stage productions are often difficult to translate to the screen, The Phantom of the Opera makes an almost seamless transition.  The film utilizes a set that is largely faithful to the original designs for the stage production and underscores the story’s themes by juxtaposing the isolated refinement of the phantom and the garish luxury of the world of the opera house. The set and costumes also succeed at placing the story within a specific time and place, which allows the almost otherworldly events of the plot to remain grounded within the limits of its historical setting. The film also succeeds at conveying its story through equal parts acting and song; a feat which too many musicals have failed to accomplish. The cast is derived primarily from film, and as a result all of the actors are able to portray their characters with a complexity and subtlety that ensures the story remains engaging and believable. Perhaps even more crucially, each of the central players possess the musical ability to sing their roles in such a way that does complete justice to composer Andrew Lloyd Webber’s iconic score, and could win over even the most devoted fans of the original stage show. Through the skill of the cast and crew, the film remains remarkably balanced and conveys its tortured romance without either the acting, visuals, or music ever upstaging the plot.  
Decisions, decisions...

Despite the inherent risks in bringing a much loved stage production to the screen, The Phantom of the Opera actually succeeds in areas that the original show fell flat. In the stage show, the phantom is an enigmatic character whose motivations remain murky throughout the plot. While this ambiguity provides excellent tension early on, it becomes frustrating as the story progresses and leaves the phantom’s internal struggles lacking and emotional core. Similarly, Christine’s fixation upon the phantom is initially explained by her grief over her father’s death, but there is little explanation for her continued interest in the phantom after his identity is revealed. Because film is a more intimate medium that lends itself to internal conflict within its characters, the film is able to develop the motivations of both of its leads in a way that lends credibility to their gothic romance. Rather than merely disfigured, the phantom is revealed to have suffered abuse and neglect when he was forced to perform in a freak show as a child. The humiliation and degradation that he endured in his childhood has clearly left his psyche just as scarred as his face, and led him to harbor a bitter antagonism against society and its hypocrisy. Similarly, Christine’s attraction to the phantom is found to be rooted in their shared status as social outsiders. As a result, she is able to let her guard down and reveal the aspects of herself to the phantom that she would never dare show to anyone else. Through his mentoring and efforts to promote her career, phantom also represents the unknown and her future as an artist whereas her relationship with Raul is still relegated to nostalgia for her past. Thus, Christine’s central struggle is not just between the two men in her life but also between her past and present just as the phantom’s quest to win Christine is one part of his greater quest to win acceptance as an artist and member of society. Through these script additions, the film adds more depth and detail to the beloved story in a way that makes the film both an excellent companion piece to the stage production and exhilarating stand-alone experience.


Through its combination of fascinating script, eye-catching costumes, dazzling effects, and soaring songs, The Phantom of the Opera is a piece that holds appeal for filmgoers and theatergoers alike. In its exploration of romance and social ostracism the film relates the power of music to redeem and transport us even within our darkest moments. The superb performances, and intimate direction brings the story to life in a way that makes the film equally as spectacular as its stage predecessor. This film is a must see for fans of excellent story-telling, romance, theater, and of course, the music of the night.
Nothing a little plastic surgery and psychiatric therapy couldn't cure

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

A review of "Sharknado 2: The Second One"

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A review of “Sharknado 2: The Second One”

By: Brian Cotnoir


Can you believe we live in a world where we have not one, but two films about a tornado made of sharks???  Well, we do.  I’ll be honest with you; I was very unimpressed with the first “Sharknado” film.  I know, right, how could I think that this is a bad film, but I did.  Actually, I didn’t think it was a “bad” film, I just found it to be very underwhelming.  All the hype being built up around “Shaknado” got me excited that this was going to be a “so-bad-that-it’s-good” film like “Troll 2”, but much to my disappointment it was really boring.  So when I heard there was a sequel being made my thought on it was, “Meh...why not? They can only go up from here, since the first one was so boring”.  So is “Sharknado 2” better than its predecessor or did it somehow manage to be a lot worst?      
SyFy's Favorite Dysfunctional TV Movie couple
    So “Sharknado 2” opens on a plane flying from California to New York, where we join our two main characters from the first film Fin Shepherd and April Wexler (played by Ian Zierling and Tara Reid).  All seems to be going well on the flight when the movie decides that it wants to pay homage to the classic Twilight Zone episode “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet”.  However, instead of a giant hairy gremlin on hiding on the wing of the plane we have a school of sharks being swept out of the ocean on to the plane.  The sharks tear a hole in the side of the plane and sucks out some of the other passengers while the others seem be planted firmly in their seats.  Some of the sharks even go on to eat Will Wheaton (who has a cameo as a passenger on the plane) and Kelly Osbourne (who is playing a stewardess on the plane).  April ends up hanging on for dear life and tries to fire a hand gun (that she stole off the U.S. Marshall), but ends up getting her hand bit off by one of the sharks.  Fin manages to land the plane as safely as possible, and he warns everyone who will listen of another impending sharknado that is about to strike Manhattan...to which most people blow off his warning as nonsense. To which I ask, why?  Everyone knows of and remembers the sharknado that hit California a few years earlier, and then Fin survives another one heading towards New York City—not to mention the countless other people on the plane who miraculously survived—so why the hell do people not believe him or head his warning?                                   
I can't believe I quit Sugar Ray to do this!
Any who...with April in the hospital, Fin goes to meet up with his sister Ellen, and her husband Martin Brody, who has left the shark infested resort town of Amity Island to move to New York City and be played by Mark McGrath of Sugar Ray instead of Roy Schieder. So Martin is on his way to see a New York Mets game, with his son, Fin, and Fin’s ex-girlfriend Skye???  Okay, I just want to clear something up:  Movie you know you already did the subplot about the films protagonist getting back together with his estranged lover, right?  You did that in first film with Fin & April, so why did you feel the need to throw another woman in there, with no intentions of a 3-way scene?  I mean, yes technically he and April are still divorced, but everyone wanted to see him get back together with Tara Reid’s character instead of Vivica A. Fox’s character.  So Fin arrives at the Mets Game just in time to warn his brother-in-law, and nephew that the impending sharknado, and calls his sister and niece who are visiting the Statue of Liberty to warn them.  Now it’s a quest for survival as a sharknado hits the most populated city in the United States.        
AND the film features Dr. Billy Ray Cyrus 
        Let me just start by saying that I actually enjoyed “Sharknado 2: The Second One”.  To me, this is everything that the first one should have been.  It has over-the-top action, it has laughs, it has plot holes out the whazoo, and so many quirky celebrity cameos that you could make a drinking game out of.  Sharknado 2: the Second One” is one of the Most Ridiculous films I have ever seen and I highly recommend it.  Especially if you’re like me and thought that the first “Sharknado” film was stupid and overrated...I mean you’re still going to think this is a stupid film, but it’ll be a good kind of stupid, like so bad its good-stupid like in “Troll 2”.  I can’t wait to see what the “Sharknado” Franchise and The Asylum Film Studios have in store for us next!  

Classics: A Review of Random Harvest By Lauren Ennis

The old saying goes that ‘all is fair in love and war’, but that saying can take on a note of irony when one reflects upon the unfairness that permeates both love and war. One film expertly captures the ways in which both institutions can have permanent and devastating effects upon the individuals whose lives they come into contact with; the 1942 romantic drama Random Harvest. Through its depiction of the ways that love and war can bring people together only to later tear them apart, the film shows the tragedy and triumph of the human experience.
Free theater and Greer Garson; the benefits of life on the outside

The story begins with an amnesia patient known only as ‘John Smith’ (Ronald Coleman) residing in an English asylum after losing his memory and much of his speech following trauma he sustained in World War I. After being introduced to one in a long succession of couple’s reclaiming their lost relatives only to be informed that he is not the man that they are searching for, Smith wanders away from the asylum in despair. Just as he reaches the edge of the asylum’s grounds, however, news arrives of the armistice, prompting the guards to celebrate rather than watch their posts. Seizing his opportunity, Smith runs away to town where he blends in amongst the local revelers. While in town he makes the acquaintance of kindly showgirl Paula (Greer Garson), who helps him to escape the local authorities and offers him a job in her traveling company. After a series of mishaps, the pair finally arrive in a secluded country village where they settle down. Several months later, Smith has transformed from the shy traumatized patient that he was into ‘Smithy’ an articulate budding writer and has fallen in love with Paula. The couple is soon married and live in harmony until he obtains a job opportunity in Liverpool shortly after the birth of their son. Unfamiliar with the city, he loses his way before he can find the job and is struck by an oncoming vehicle only to wake up with his memories of his past life restored. This restoration of his past unfortunately comes at the cost of his present as the trauma erases all memories of Smith’s new life with Paula. Smith, now resuming his old life as the wealthy Charles Rainier, tries his best to move on with his new life and even finds a new love interest (Susan Peters), but is unable to lead a full existence so long as he is plagued by the doubts and questions of his lost years. He nearly gives up hope until fate intervenes in the form of his uncannily familiar secretary, who is revealed to be none other than Paula.

While amnesia is usually reserved as a convenient plot device in soap operas and melodramas, Random Harvest is far from sensationalized. Instead of contrived drama, the film uses the disorder to highlight the all too real crisis of identity that trauma can cause.  As a result, the disorder serves as the story’s central metaphor for the sense of loss that soldiers often home to. During his stay at the asylum, Smith is fearful, awkward, and unable to interact with a world that he seems to have no place in. Although the doctors credit Smith’s amnesia as the reason for his timidity and lost speech, this simplified diagnosis is called into question when he displays assertiveness and reveals himself to be capable of articulation with Paula. His interactions with Paula shed light on how his anxiety following his war-time experiences contributes just as much to his reservation as his memory loss. When finally away from the hospital, he is able to focus upon his present and open up to Paula in ways that he would have been unable to open up to anyone while still surrounded by reminders of his forgotten past at the asylum. His progress also directly correlates to the level of normality that he achieves once he has escaped from the asylum. When he first meets Paula, his is lost mentally as well as physically in a world that seems to have moved on without him. As the two settle down and build a life together, however, he regains his sense of purpose and steadily improves until he is finally a confident and self-reliant man capable of starting a career and supporting a family.  His loss of any recollection of Paula upon regaining memories of his service similarly illustrates the way in which his progress is derailed once he is forced to confront his past trauma. Although as Charles Rainier he is more socially prominent and conventionally successful than John Smith was, he is also emotionally detached from the world around him and unable to fully appreciate anything in his life. It is only when he is able to come to terms with his experiences that he is able to reconcile his two halves and become a whole person at long last. The film’s happy ending, while very Hollywood, serves as a hopeful reminder that with patience and understanding happiness and fulfillment can be found even after the most devastating of events.
Is it really bigamy if you can't remember?

Beyond its intelligent and poignant script, Random Harvest also boasts performances that are nothing short of classic. Ronald Coleman expertly portrays both John Smith and Charles Rainier and is able to lend credibility to both characterizations. His Smith is an endearing blend of honesty and gentleness that leaves little doubt as to how he was able to attract the worldly Paula. His portrayal of the established Rainier, by contrast, is all propriety and no passion as Charles devotes himself so much to his career that he loses sight of the love that is right before him all along. Greer Garson is stunning in her portrayal as Paula, portraying her as an impulsive actress and self-sacrificing wife with equal skill and maintains an air of intelligence and wit regardless of her character’s changing circumstances. The supporting players all provide apt performances with Susan Peters and Philip Dorn particularly standing out in their multifaceted turns as Charles’ high society love interest and asylum physician.


Although critics initially dismissed it as mere sentiment, Random Harvest is a testament to hope and survival even in the most dire of circumstances. Through its dignified portrayal of its hero’s journey to recovery the film sheds light on the effects of war on soldiers and those that they leave behind, which linger long after the battles have ceased. Through its heartfelt script and superb performances the film brings the popular novel it is based upon to vibrant life and stands equally well when viewed independently as its own story. During their first meeting John Smith tries to convince Paula he is safe despite his stay in the asylum and says, “I’m not like the others” in many ways that sums up this film’s appeal as well, it is not like any other romance in cinema, in all the best ways.
A well-earned homecoming
FOR ANOTHER TAKE ON THE TOLL OF WAR BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY SPANISH CIVIL WAR SCREENPLAY A FIGHTING CHANCE http://offthewallplays.com/2015/02/19/a-fighting-chance-screenplay-about-spanish-civil-war/

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Monsters in the VHS Player: 3 Dark 90's Kids' Movies By Lauren Ennis

This week, I’ll be taking a page from Das Film Junkie’s playbook and discussing three exceedingly dark children’s movies. While there is no denying that for centuries kids have been raised upon the disturbing content found in gruesome fairytales and violent nursery rhymes, the children’s films of the 1990’s stand out for their consistent willingness to not only include, but build entire plots around such taboo topics as animal abuse, child neglect, and organized crime amongst other topics. Nearly two decades later, these films still remain firmly and frighteningly ingrained in my memory and continue to serve as reminders of just how alternative an era the 1990’s truly was.

1.      ROVER DANGERFIELD: At first glance, this obscure animated film from 1991 seems like a harmless if awkward effort to market stand-up comedian Rodney Dangerfield to children. Upon closer observation, however, the film reveals itself to be a gritty take on animated kids’ films. The movie contains the requisite talking animals, musical numbers, and saintly love interest as other animated films, but instead of telling a heartwarming tale, the film uses its innocuous appearance to lure children in to an introduction to the horrors of animal abuse. The film starts with street-smart mutt Rover living the high life with his showgirl owner, Connie, in Las Vegas. Conflict enters, however, when the film introduces Connie’s sleazy boyfriend, Rocky, who besides looking like he’s in the throes of withdrawal and has forgotten the meaning of the word 'shower', despises Rover. When Connie goes on an extended trip, she leaves Rover in Rocky’s care as Rocky goes about attempting to make it big in organized crime. After Rover accidentally interrupts one of Rocky’s shady deals, he retaliates against the dog by putting him into a sack and throwing the sack over the Hoover Dam. Fortunately, Rover survives the blatant murder attempt and is taken in by a farm family on the condition that he will be sent to a shelter at the first sign of trouble. While it seems reasonable that the family would consider the option of putting the dog into a shelter in hopes of finding a family that will be a better match, stern patriarch Cal specifically says that the shelter will be used as a way to ensure that Rover is ‘put down’ if he starts trouble. Rover surprisingly stays on at the farm despite the knowledge that each day he stays there could be his last and eventually begins to adjust to farm life with the help of the lovely collie next door, Daisy. Animal cruelty rears its ugly head once again, however, when a pack of wolves attack and (in a particularly graphic scene) kill the family’s Christmas turkey and run away just in time for Rover to be blamed. Rather than build a better fence, take Rover to obedience school, or accept the fact that sometimes dogs get hungry too, Cal decides to skip the shelter and make Rover pay for his crime by taking the dog into the woods to shoot him. Luckily for Rover, the wolves attack once again, but this time he is able to fight them off and save Cal’s life, becoming a local hero in the process. After finally returning home to Connie in Las Vegas, Rover helps arrange Rocky’s much deserved demise, but then makes the bizarre choice of disposing of one abuser only to beg Connie to be reunited with his other abusers at the farm. While animal abuse is a heinous subject that children should be taught to stand up against, the film undermines its own lesson by rightfully punishing one abuser as a villain while inexplicably hailing another as a paragon of respectability. For graphic violence and concerning mixed messages Rover Dangerfield is a startling example of just how dark 90’s comedies could be.
Proving that dogs can be better than many a boyfriend

2.      THE SECRET GARDEN: Based upon the beloved novel, 1993’s The Secret Garden is commendable for its faithfulness to its source material. The script is in fact so faithful that it even includes the racism and child neglect of the original novel. The film begins with angst ridden Mary Lennox discussing her upbringing in colonial India with flashbacks to her being attended to by a series of Indian servants whom she refuses to so much as acknowledge. She also laments the ways in which her parents put their own needs first and ignored her throughout her childhood until they were tragically killed in an earthquake. Despite Mary’s complaints, however, her parents seem merely preoccupied and their self-absorption seems hardly deserving of her blind hatred and fails to explain her strange pride at her inability to cry after their deaths. Mary soon faces a much more real instance of neglect when she is taken in by her uncle, the morbidly depressed Lord Craven, who has spent the last ten years avoiding his estate and the memories of his deceased wife that it inspires. After being largely ignored at the estate by her absent uncle and the household staff, Mary makes an acquaintance with her maid, Martha, whom she insists upon treating as subhuman despite Martha’s sincere efforts to make her feel at home. As if Mary’s elitism isn’t difficult enough for a modern audience to stomach, she later reveals herself to be racist when she slaps Martha across the face and throws a hysterical tantrum when Martha mentions her surprise at Mary’s being white and British despite her Indian origins. Given the time period in which it is set, the conversation is within historical context, but the film fails to use this moment as a lesson by allowing Mary’s prejudices to go unchallenged. As a result, the film implies that her racist beliefs are not just commonplace for their time, but in fact acceptable and correct. Following her outburst, Mary stumbles upon her invalid cousin who is even more sullen and neglected than she is. Colin, she discovers, has been hidden in a back room in the house with a mysterious illness and has never so much as seen the light of day in all of his ten years. While the logical choice would be to have the boy treated for his condition and provide him with loving care, Lord Craven finds his son’s paralysis too painful a reminder of his losses and leaves the boy’s care entirely to the staff, refusing to so much as visit him. The staff do little to alleviate Colin’s ills by constantly reminding him that he has a supposedly terminal illness and leaving him alone all day to ponder his own mortality. Finally, the hardened hearts of the Craven family are softened when Colin miraculously learns to walk just in time for his father to learn to bear the sight of him and for Mary to learn that life tends to be better when you focus on more than the ways in which you’ve been slighted. With the magic of flowers standing in for much needed psycho-therapy, The Secret Garden is a film that can bring out the misanthrope and elitist in us all.
Mary Lennox: Rocking adolescent angst before it had a name



3.      THE WITCHES: Perhaps the most blatantly dark film on this list is the 1990 adaptation of the Roald Dahl classic The Witches. Like The Secret Garden, The Witches is extremely faithful to its source novel and maintains all of the sinister chills of the original. The story begins with Luke listening to his grandmother’s tales of witches in her native land, including a particularly haunting story of how her neighbor was imprisoned in a portrait by a witch, leaving her family to assume she had disappeared. Tragedy strikes when Luke’s parents are killed in a car accident, but his kindly grandmother takes him in and provides him with a loving home. The plot thickens, however, when Luke encounters several real life witches who are every bit as malicious and vile as his grandmother told him. The film does maintain a solid moral standpoint by showing the witches as evil and also reminds children that people can learn from their mistakes and change when one witch redeems herself with a good deed in the film’s final scene. It also provides kids with useful lessons in ‘stranger danger’ by having several of the witches behave strikingly similar to kidnappers when they attempt to lure children with candy and false promises. Despite its consistent messages, however, the film contains plenty of darkness in just how evil it shows its witches to be. The film’s most grotesque moments come courtesy of scenes in which children are graphically transformed into mice, witches annihilate one another on a whim, and a pair of witches attempt to roll a baby carriage over a cliff. Perhaps the most disturbing and realistic instance in the film is its finale which, despite its happy ending for Luke, informs viewers that the witches are alive and well and ready to strike at any time. For a deliciously dark thrill ride that will last well beyond Halloween, look no further than The Witches.
Not even the most horrifying scene