Les Miserables

   Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates in Psycho

8. The King Kong Remake…how does it hold up compared to the original?

Well, last week I talked about the different remakes of Alice in Wonderland, this week I’d like to tackle a different classic.  King Kong premiered in 1933 and received excellent critic reviews, as well as audiences going crazy for the “8th Wonder of the World”.

For those of you who haven’t seen it, or for the very small population that doesn’t know what it’s about, the story is about a film crew that goes to shoot their story on an exotic island where they run into issues with natives, dinosaurs, and other incredible animals, and the leading lady of the picture is sacrificed to the gigantic gorilla that sort of rules the land.  The gorilla is of course, King Kong.  Kong takes a liking to the woman, and the two begin to depend on each other in the wild.  Finally the crew rescue the woman, and she, along with Kong, are brought back to New York.  The gorilla is then put on show for the public as the 8th Wonder of the World.  However, after being treated cruelly, and driven by his desire to be reunited with Ann Darrow (the woman), he flees begins an angry rampage through New York, killing citizens, and finally finding Darrow.  To escape the crowds, and keep Darrow safe, Kong scales the Empire State Building with her.  Kong is tragically killed when he is shot down by planes, falls off of the building, and is killed in his fall.  Crazy story right?

King Kong was redone in 1976, but I want to focus on the 2005 remake because that is the only one that really rivals the original. This Peter Jackson film also did very well in regards to reviews and reception, and even won a few Oscars.  I want to examine the two films and see how the new one compares to the old one…….so I’m gonna do that now.

I want to pay attention to three different aspects:

1. The Ann Darrow:  Ann Darrow is the main character, and both films show a different type of leading lady.  In the 1933 version, Fay Wray portrays Darrow as more of the damsel in distress.  She is funny at times, kind to Kong, and you do begin to like her and root for her, but she screams A LOT.  Screaming is really her thing.  Naomi Watts gives a more modern woman type Darrow.  In may be because female characters have become more and more developed since 1933, but she really handles herself well.  There is a specific scene when Kong first takes her back to his “home” that she begins dancing and performing for him and he loves it.  He loves it so much that he begins pushing her and demanding more, but Watts’ Darrow shouts back at him that she’s done, she stands up to a massive gorilla.  She is feminine in other scenes as she does scream a few times, she goes ice skating with Kong, and of course she bawls her eyes out when he’s killed, but all around, she really stands on her own two feet.

2.  King Kong himself:  I saw the original King Kong when I was about 4, andI loved that portrayal.  He was the real deal in my opinion.  I know the original Kong looks ridiculous, as he’s clearly a toy or a giant stuffed head, but I don’t mean it in regards of looks.  The original Kong acts like an ape.  His face always looks like an animal’s face, he is clumsy in the city, and is easily confused by human behavior. I think this is what made his death so very sad, because he really could not understand what was going on.  The 2005 version of Kong has more of a human like face.  Because of CGI and modern technology, the filmmakers were able to have the new King Kong show emotion.  His brow furrows and his eyes light up at different points.  When the time comes for him to fight the airplanes, he has a game face.  He looks like he’s been ready for this fight and has a real comprehensive anger against the pilots.  This is something I could never really get into, but a lot of other people loved that.  What is amazing is how the filmmakers made themovements of the new kong seem so real and authentic.  This one is really based on a matter of preference, both are excellent characters, they’re just different.

3.  The Story as a whole:  The original King Kong is an absolute classic, but duh, it’s the original.  What I mean by that is, it tells the story in the classic way.  The filmmakers didn’t approach it with an abstract idea or artistic experimentation in mind.  The monster is revealed within the first hour, the romance is simple, and the character of Kong is simple, as I already stated.  They rely on the plot, the horror of the roaring Kong, and the skill of the actors to portray everything properly to make the film.  In regards to fear provoking, the original shows the creatures on Skull Island as full on predators.  Everything on the island is out to just kill the humans, which is sort of different from the remake.  As I already stated, these creatures are less emotional and more instinctive than those in the remake, so this can be a bit scarrier as it is clear that there’s no reasoning with them.  Repeating another point that I already raised, Kong’s death is a big more tragic in the first one, as he truly seems defenseless in the end.  The 2005 version goes more into character development and things are a bit more complicated.  The romance between Darrow and Driscoll gets more screen time, the relationship between Denham (the director) and the rest of the crew gets more screen time, and the monster isn’t shown for the first hour of the film.  In regards to fear, Skull Island is terrifying because of the natives.  The crew is attacked by the natives who are portrayed as absolute savages.  Honestly, if you haven’t seen the film, take my word for it, the natives will give you nightmares.  The creatures on the island are scary in their own right (that massive centipede was NOT ok) but they don’t do much to the crew.  Members of the crew are killed by them, but the deaths aren’t as awful as they are in the original.  Also, the emotion for Kong’s death comes out more from the reaction of Darrow to his death.  Once again, the two are excellent stories, and it’s really up for a matter of preference.  (I personally like the original)

Thanks everyone for reading my post, and hopefully you all learned something about appreciating the classics and the remakes for the different experiences they provide audiences with.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 The White Rabbit, Alice in Wonderland, 1951.

7. Why are there so many Alices?

Disney has recently announced that Alice in Wonderland 2: Through the Looking Glass  will premiere Memorial Day of this year.  This is exciting news for any Disney, or Alice fans, but this is also time to ask, why are there SO MANY Alice in Wonderlands? or Alices in Wonderland, or Alices in Wonderlands?”- anyway, what’s the deal?

Disney released the original animated film in 1951, and it was a pretty big hit.  People of all ages still enjoy the film.  In 2010, Disney took a different approach toward the beloved Lewis Carroll character, and created a live action film, and now we have another one coming out.  That’s just the three that Disney produced though.  If you have a minute, go onto youtube and search “Alice in Wonderland movie” or “Alice in Wonderland film”, or better yet “Alice in Wonderland, 19..” and the rest will fill in because there have been dozens of Alice in Wonderland movies made in the last 100 years.  (I mean 100 years too, there was a silent Alice film made in 1915).  Why though? What about this story draws so many people to find a new way to make it?  Well I think I might know why, so here we go.

Lewis Carroll’s  novel Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland came out in 1865.  People were completely blown away by the imagination in it.  There was a talking rabbit that ran around, a grinning cat, a crazy guy that drank tea with a hare, dueling knights, a griffin, a talking turtle, food that makes you bigger and smaller, and a murderous queen all in one crazy world, where some poor little girl was stuck and trying to get home.  The characters were great and very entertaining, but it was a novel.  When we read things, the scenes in the book play in our minds, and we’re the directors.  Wonderland is a place where just about anything can happen, so everyone imagines it in their own way.

The 1951 version used the technology of animation to their advantage.  In this production, the film makers could actually have a talking rabbit and marching cards because they were drawing them.  Earlier films couldn’t do this, they could only have a guy in a rabbit costume.  You ever want to fully appreciate the wonder and power of animation?  Just watch the tea party scene of the 1952 Alice in Wonderland.  Today, movie makers are using CGI and special effects to create the world and characters of Wonderland.  The Red Queen’s head alone is an advancement on what has been done in the past. Body movements and other creatures which could only be found in Wonderland can now be expanded upon with the help of technology.  It’s actually quite exciting to see what the filmmakers will conjure up next.

I’ve watched maybe 7 different versions of Alice in Wonderland movies and shows in my life, and I’ve noticed theres a particular group of characters that the filmmakers pay close attention to.  This group is Alice, the White Rabbit, the Mad Hatter, the Cheshire Cat, and the Queen of Hearts.  A few films have touched on others like the Marge Hare, the dueling knights, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, but none get as many lines or action as these characters.  They’re the exciting ones though, and different film makers have taken different approaches to each character in all the different versions I’ve seen.  In the 1951 version, Alice is just a curious girl who has the ability to stand up for herself using her words, while the more modern one shows Alice using violence.  I have also seen different Alices portrayed as idiots that just cannot get the fact that they’re in a magical land, and other ones that spend the entire trip beating themselves up for being silly enough to follow a white rabbit.  There have been different White Rabbits, some being very helpful, others telling Alice to go away, and some that try to kill her because they think she’s a monster when she gets too big.  Some Cheshire cats have been more than helpful and comfort Alice while she’s upset, and others have mocked her for crying about not knowing the way to go.  The character that usually steals the show, and has been portrayed with many different attitudes though, is the Mad Hatter.  The Hatter is simply funny in the 1951 version and doesn’t help Alice all that much in trying to leave Wonderland.  In the 2010 version though, the Mad Hatter is  a real ally to Alice and helps her in just about every task. He is a revolutionary against the Red Queen, and Alice’s comrade in war.  The great thing about the Mad Hatter is you never quite know how mad he really is.  One of my favorite versions of Alice in Wonderland came out in 1999, and in that, the Mad Hatter was a lunatic.  He was of course funny and silly, but at one point he gets furious for no real reason and snaps at Alice.  I loved how the creators took a chance with the fact that this guy’s crazy, and made him just all types of crazy.

The story of Alice and her time spent in Wonderland was revolutionary when Lewis Carroll first published his book.  Today, we still love the idea of a place that’s right under our noses, but very different and magical.  It is no wonder that filmmakers are enthralled by Wonderland.

 

6. Top Egalitarian Disney Princesses

In recent years, Disney Princesses have been criticized for being dependent upon men and magic, and unable to stand on their own two feet.  There have been a few princesses that have attempted to break that tradition. Egalitarianism is the belief that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.   Today, I would like out my top 5 egalitarian Disney princesses.

5. Tiana

Princess Tiana is of course the main character of Princess and the Frog, and when we are first introduced to her, she is a great role model.  She wasn’t born into money, so she works two jobs to achieve her goal of owning her own restaurant one day. Tiana has one moment of weakness when she gives into Naveen’s begging to kiss him so that he can be turned back into a man from his frog form.  However, for the remainder of the film, we see Tiana stick to her values and smarts, and falls in love with Naveen because of who he is as a person, not because he is a prince.  Naveen also relies on Tiana for help in escaping the dangers the face as frogs.  She is a heroine.  Tiana has the strength in herself to see past Facillier’s tricks and be true to herself.  Though Tiana shows great strength, and doesn’t rely on magic or Naveen to save her, her dream does come true by way of luck. In the end, realtors give Tiana her restaurant because Louis the alligator scares them into it.

4. Merida

Pixar was so excited to release their first ever heroine to the big screen 2012.  I was actually very disappointed with Merida when I saw Brave.  Basically, in my opinion, Merida is a typical rebellious teenager, she just has a bow.  Merida’s main issue in the film is that her mother won’t listen to her and take her seriously, so she has a witch “change” her.  Her mother turns into a bear, and the entire movie is Merida righting her wrong.  I’m being a bit harsh though.  What is likable about Merida, and egalitarian about her is that she brings change to Scotland. Merida is a rebel with a cause, and that cause is to not be pushed around by tradition, and not be married off like chattel because she is female.  By the end of the film, a new law is declared that Merida may marry whomever she wishes, if she ever does marry. Merida’s egalitarian attitude also comes out in her humor as she makes it clear that she is not impressed by her suitors.  At the tournament to win Merida’s hand in marriage, she playfully mocks the suitors, and then proves that she is actually an equal, if not better archer.

 

3. Pocahontas

Though the film Pocahontas was not loved by critics, I can’t help but love the character.  Just look at her.  She isn’t all dolled up in makeup, her dress doesn’t scream “I’m a delicate flower”, and it’s perfect for her daily tasks of hiking mountains and kayaking miles.  Pocahontas is not your run of the mill Disney princess.  Her personality, and the choices she makes in the film also prove her egalitarian attitude though.  She finds out that her father wants her to marry Kocoum, as he would be a “handsome sturdy husband” to build “handsome sturdy walls,” but Pocahontas just can’t bring herself to do it.  Her reasoning is not like princesses in other films that will not marry a man because they don’t love them, she will not marry him because she sees more for herself.  In the film she mentions the dream giver is always driving her ambition, and her need to seek out more in life.  John Smith of course arrives and catches her eye, and once again Pocahontas reveals that she is a forward thinker.  She does not sit back like a woman should when her tribe attempts to kill John, she throws herself over him to save him.  She also does not blindly agree with her father and her tribe’s opinion of the white men, she seeks out her own truth.

2. Mulan

I know, I know, Mulan isn’t really a princess, but she’s really tough so don’t talk bad about her.  Mulan is probably the toughest of all the Dinsey women, in more ways than one.  Her call to action was not due to romance or the fact that she felt less than content in life, although she really was less than content.  Milan’s call to action was to save her father elderly father from having to go to war.  In the film, she does not rely on magic, in fact she doesn’t know for a while that Mushu is there to help her.  Mulan relies on willpower and courage.  In regards to egalitarianism, Mulan proves that she is equal to her comrades in war, and again when she saves the emperor.  Mulan’s bravest moment is probably when she confronts Shang about the threat to the emperor, and calls him out on being a misogynist.  However, Mulan doesn’t have much else to her character, other than the fact that she’s quirky, but tough.

 

1. Belle

I remember watching Beauty and the Beast as a child and thinking that there was something more to Belle.  I believe it was because Belle was the first Disney princess to not just be pretty and kind.  Before Belle, there were princesses like Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora, whose only character traits were just that.  They were pretty, kind, and had a good singing voice.  Belle has much better character development.  Belle is knowledgeable, brave, clever, well spoken, classy, and alluring all at the same time.  In the same film, we see Belle push away a creeper (Gaston) because he’s superficial, take her fathers place in prison out of love, bawl her eyes out over it, but then go right back in her captor’s face, save him from wolves, fight with him, get to know him, fall in love with him, leave her love in the name of family, then return and save her love once more, and then help in destroying a curse on her love. Movies that came out right after Beauty and the Beast, like Aladdin, and Mulan tried to show their leading ladies as having functioning brains with sense’s of humor, or biting rhetoric, but none came out as well as Belle.  Belle can be charming, grumpy, lady like, heroic, miserable, and funny.  She is a round character, not a flat one.  Belle demands to be taken seriously, and in the end is Prince Adam’s (the Beast) partner.   As his wife, she is his equal, she is not a pretty prize that he won, she is an independent woman that fell in love with him.

 

5. The Use of Color in Film

As I’ve stated time and time again, movie makers utilize so many tools to reach their goal of making the perfect movie.  Sometimes, we don’t even notice the tricks they’re using right in front of our eyes.  Today I want to shed some light on the use of color in film.  Believe it or not, a lot of directors and filmmakers use human psychology, and reactions towards color to force our minds to react a certain way, or feel different moods.

Probably two of the easiest films I could use for this subject is The Wizard of Oz and Peter Pan.  Now when I say The Wizard of Oz, a lot of you are probably thinking,” umm Kayla, there’s A LOT of crazy colors in that movie that could mean anything.”  I know, but just hear me out.

The first example of manipulation by color in The Wizard of Oz is the switch from black and white, to color when Dorothy enters Munchkin Land after leaving Kansas.  Obviously she’s entered a whole new type of world with magic, and fantastical beings.  Take a step back though, and examine the colors closely.  What is Dorothy wearing?  Her blue and white checkered dress is very pale.  Pale colors are not power colors (duh).  She is completely over powered by all the bright reds, and greens, and yellows of Oz.  The ruby slippers are her weapon though, both in the plot, and the color battle.  Red is kind of a grown up color.  Red is sexy, bold, loud, adult.  In this film, Dorothy is learning a life lesson, and growing up.  These red slippers are aiding her in that.  Now, lets look at the other colors.  The yellow brick road is an iconic part of The Wizard of Oz.  The color yellow stands for caution, and sometimes instability.  No one really knows where the yellow brick road will lead, and which way is the correct way.  It’s just kind of unsettling.  Then of course there are the colors of the magical people.  Glinda is a nice, welcoming pink.  Pink can stand for love, something soft, or innocence.  Glinda is the witch of the North, so why wouldn’t she be dressed in all white?  White is cold, and not very friendly.  Glinda had to immediately be seen as “the good guy”.  Then of course there is the green Wicked Witch of the West.  A person with blue, or bright orange, or purple skin would seem just as odd and creepy, so why did they choose green?  Historically, human beings have a bit of hostility toward the color green.  Dangerous reptiles are green, food that has gone bad is green, green can be a lovely color, but not in certain contexts.  Now these colors were used this way in The Wizard of Oz, but they can also have different meanings if used on different characters in different scenarios.

What color comes to mind when you think of the character Peter Pan? Green of course.  Peter Pan is almost always depicted as wearing green.  Green can also symbolize youth.  There are certain expressions about someone being too young for a job, or too young to be speaking out, they are said to be “too green”.  Peter Pan is the spirit of youth, so it would be fitting that green would be his color.  Red comes up again in this film as Captain Hook is seen sporting a red coat.  Red, once again stands for power, adulthood, and in this case, danger.  The bright red that Captain Hook wears reminds us of blood.  Of course, red isn’t always used this way, a warmer red, or an orange red mix can be seductive, or just loving.  However, in the case of Captain Hook, it’s a threatening contrast to Peter’s green.  Yellow can also be seen in Peter Pan.  The fairy dust that Tinker Bell produces is yellow.  The children when being taught to fly are showered in golden fairy dust.  What makes it different to the cautious yellow brick road is that it is a golden yellow.  Gold is warm, and can symbolize light, idealism, and of course, power.  When the golden fairy dust comes out, something magical and good is about to happen. All of these colors are technically the same colors used in The Wizard of Oz, but they carry very different meanings in Peter Pan.

Hopefully this whole idea wasn’t too abstract.  For more on this subject, you can easily search the internet for more articles, and I definitely recommend the book If It’s Purple, Someone’s Gonna Die, The Power of Color in Visual Storytelling by Patti Bellantoni.  Thanks for reading, and once again, if you have any suggestions for future posts, please tell me in the comments, or go to the Flicks on Fleek  Facebook or Twitter page.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean 

4. There are two types of actors (not really but shh…just read this)

Ok, today I want to talk about actors and peoples’ reactions to them.  Have you ever noticed that you sometimes involuntary classify some actors differently?  This is not coming across properly at all so let me just use pictures.

 When you look at these two actors, what comes to mind. Did you say “Bradley Cooper and Daniel Radcliffe”? or did you say “Bradley Cooper and Harry Potter?” That’s what I’m talking about.  Now some of you would argue that Harry Potter was such an iconic role, but wait a minute.  Hasn’t Bradley Cooper had a few iconic roles too? Yet when you see him do you think the American sniper Chris Kyle, do you think Phil the pack leader in The Hangover movies, Pat from Silver Linings Playbook?  No, you just think “Bradley Cooper”.   He’s the actors that took on these roles.  That being said, Daniel Radcliffe is not any less of an actor than Bradley Cooper.  Radcliffe is excellent and has been in a number of other works in film and Broadway and has given extraordinary performances.  Is it because Harry Potter was a film series? I don’t know, maybe if I keep typing I’ll find an answer.

Let’s mention other actors.  I’ll give you 6, Robert Downey Jr., Jennifer Lawrence, Harrison Ford,  Elijah Wood, Sean Connery, and Kate Winslet.  What do they all have in common? There are vowels in their names- just kidding haha.  Lets break them down.  The first three, you can almost give them the title of the characters they’ve played.  Downey would get the name Iron Man, Lawrence would get Katniss Everdeen, and Harrison Ford would get either Han Solo or Indiana Jones.  These actors have played these characters in multiple, successful films. It’s not like no one’s ever heard of any of these characters, they’re iconic.  These actors are so much more than their roles though.  Robert Downey Jr. had already made a name for himself in Hollywood before donning the red and yellow armor.  Jennifer Lawrence was not exactly a household name before The Hunger Games was released, but she had done other work as Mystique in the X Men films, and she also was in Silver Linings Playbook the same year (2012) and won an Oscar for her portrayal of Tiffany.  Perhaps what helped Ford was that he was in two major franchises (Star Wars and Indiana Jones) but of course he has been in a number of other films and is just an iconic personality- WAIT THAT’S IT!  Another thing that ties the first three together is their attitudes. When you think Robert Downey Jr. you think snarky, fun, and cocky guy on the red carpet.  When you think Jenifer Lawrence, you think J-law, the regular girl who’s always hungry and isn’t very lady like.  When you think Harrison Ford, you think..grump. You can’t exactly put someone like Bradley Cooper in this group though.  He is known as nice, polite, charming, but he doesn’t really have a brand like these other three actors, and neither do most actors in Hollywood.  There are a choice few who really have the boisterous personality that gets attention.

The second group of three in the group I mentioned are obviously the actors that you think of a particular role they played.  Wood and Connery fall into the series trap, with The Lord of the Rings, and James Bond respectively.  What about Kate Winslet though? Well, lets be honest, a lot of people still associate her with Rose from Titanic.  It’s easy to do that though.  Titanic was incredibly successful so everyone and their mother saw it like 10 times.  It also doesn’t help that Kate Winslet also had a nude seen in that film.  It’s hard to erase that from the public’s memory.  Winslet has of course acted in a number of films, and was actually nominated for an Oscar this year,  for her role in Steve Jobs.  She was even the main villain in the Divergent films, yet we don’t look at her and say “look it’s Jeanine”.

There are also actors that we type-cast.  These actors are more part of the iconic actor group, instead of the iconic role group.    For example, people in the sixties weren’t shocked when John Wayne wasn’t casted for the lead in The Nutty Professor, just like today we wouldn’t be shocked if Chris Rock wasn’t picked to play the lead in this year’s historical drama.  John Wayne was the rough and tough cowboy, and Chris Rock is the funny, excited, goof ball.  The same thing happened with Robin Williams.  We always expected Williams to be the funny, heartwarming, silly hero.  When he was the deep and thoughtful therapist in Good Will Hunting you were probably pleasantly surprised, but also like “Hey, get back to making us laugh”.  Then One Hour Photo came out.  Robin Williams really took a different direction with that one.  I don’t know if this happens to you, but I always get kind of nauseous when a funny actor takes a more serious role.  When I saw Steve Carrell in Fox Catcher I was deeply disturbed.  I wanted my sweet Brick back, or my Michael Scott.  Some actors, when they take on roles other than what they usually take, it becomes funnier than anyone could have imagined.  Just think about how hilarious Robert DeNiro was in Meet the Parents.  The great man that once said “Are you talking to me?” actually say s “I have nipples Greg, could you milk me?”.  Just think about that for a minute.  It’s just too funny.

So what am I saying?  I think I know at this point, and what I’m saying is: there’s no one answer as to how some actors get put into which group.  It could be, but not always is, because of a series they were in.  Audiences see the same actor playing the same character over and over again, so it just sinks in that way.  Another reason could also be the timing of the movie.  Daniel Radcliffe grew up as Harry Potter, so that makes it so much harder for him to be seen as anyone else.  Like Kate Winslet’s case, it could also be because a film is so successful, or a very unique performance (we totally saw her naked..and that scene was long).  I’m just a college student with no experience in this field, so I can’t really give you a solid answer, but I will say this.  What we have to remember is to look at the motion picture as a whole, and not just the actor.  Thanks for reading, and please feel free to suggest some topics for posts in comments, or on my Facebook page.

 

 

 

 

Robin Williams as  John Keating: Dead Poet’s Society