Commentary 04 May 2013 06:26 am
Imaging
This week we saw a couple of excellent entertanment pieces that weren’t too taxing on either my fanny or my brain.
We went to see the hottest ticket in town last Tuesday, Matilda. It’s a theatrical musical which adapts Roald Dahl‘s great children’s novel. Years ago, when the book had just come out, I contacted Dahl’s agent trying to get the rights to make an animated film out of it. It turns out we were competing with a “Hollywood” company which was Danny DeVito’s company, Jersey Films. Naturally and expectedly, Jersey Films won the rights. I loved in Quentin Blake‘s glorious illustrations and would have animated the film in his style.
Eventually, Danny DeVito directed the cartoon of a live-action movie. It was built to be nasty and unpleasant. The film wasn’t a very good version of Roald Dahl‘s words, at least not in my eyes. The film wasn’t a flop, but it wasn’t very good either. It was more about her family and the school teacher and the gym teacher-villain, Mrs. Trunchbull.
The stage musical is better, but not brilliant storytelling, either. Both the film and the play are more interested in characters other than Matilda. They’re all exotic, and it’s easier to write for them than for the little girl who is the center of the story. In the play, Bertie Carvel, plays the part of the villain, Miss Trunchbull. The actor is the one person who has been reaping all the awards – whether in England or the US. He had won the Olivier Award in London and was nominated for the Tony, here.
In the musical, the dialogue whether in the songs or out, is hard to understand despite being miked. I found myself uninterested in the show which was long, at more than two hours forty minutes. I was certainly unimpressed given all the awards.
There is a major problem with theater seats lately. They’ve tightened the aisles, so one’s knees are smack up against the row in front of you, and your legs go numb before the first act ends. That was NOT the case with this theater. I repeat, that was not the case with this theater seat. It was ALMOST comfortable. For me to say that is saying a lot. Not its money’s worth ($132 per ticket), but at least no physical pain.
Then on Thursday night there was an Academy screening of The Great Gatsby as directed by Baz Luhrmann. You’ll remember that he was the director/writer of Moulin Rouge a few years ago. Many people loved it, I did not. As a matter of fact, I truly disliked it. On Thursday we were to see the film and attend an after screening Q&A with Luhrmann and his wife, costume designer, Catherine Martin.
The film was a long two hours and thirty minutes (not quite as long as Matilda but certainly a more attractive movie.) ___________________Baz Luhrmann & Catherine Martin
Leonardo DiCaprio played Jay Gatsby, and he did well in the part. The choices all seemed to be good ones. The film is done in 3D, and is enormously attractive. Just as Life of Pi seemed to have found the need for the 3D camera, so, too, does The Great Gatsby.
Mind you I was bored silly for moments, but there were also so many other moments that were extraordinarily gorgeous or tautly rigged that the energy was just wonderful often. ____________Patrick Harrison, Baz Luhrmann & Catherine Martin
It’s quite the movie.
We were told that the Q&A would last between 20-30 minutes. But Luhrmann and his wife were both so compelling and wanted to talk about this work of art that they’d just completed – the talk went on for almost an hour. It was compelling, to say the least.
There are a number of films coming this month that I’m looking forward to. The Iceman stars Michael Shannon as the cold-blooded version of Tony Soprano. This time a mobster who actually existed. There will also be Sarah Polley‘s new documentary, Stories We Tell. Ms. Polley will be there to tell us some stories in person Epic is the new film from Blue Sky, which was directed by Chris Wedge. Perhaps Mr. Wedge will join us for a Q&A.
Aardman’s Winter Trees
- Aardman Animation teamed with the group, The Staves, to create a truly fine animated music video. This company, Aardman, has famously produced technically excellent work, consistently and reliably. This video was created using a mix of Flash and CGI.
The video was directed by Karni and Saul from the song by the British group The Staves, three sisters, Emily Staveley-Taylor – vocals, Camilla Staveley-Taylor – vocals and ukulele, Jessica Staveley-Taylor, vocals and guitar. There is an interview with Karni and Saul, who made the imagery, directed and animated it. Essentially they here talk about the making of.
This video seems to have been inspired by many of the recent bouts of weather we’ve been having over the planet. Episodes such as Hurricane Sandy are going to become more and more prevalent, and this video seems to take it as the natural course of things. The film work is not only a remarkable technical achievement but an an intellectual one as well.
Congratulations to both Aardman and The Staves.
_____________________________
Gepetto’s Namesake
Last night TCM aired a film called, For the Greater Glory, which was directed by Frank Borzage. It was a post WWI drama where some children defend their home-turf, a vacant lot, with a gang they’ve formed. In the cast, playing a watchman who should be watching the vacant lot, is the actor, Christian Rub.
When making Pinocchio, after a difficult start with a VO that wasn’t working as “Gepetto”, Disney hired Christian Rub, and he became the voice of Gepetto. It was a problem which was resolved at the start of the film.
You’ll see from the image above that Christian Rub actually looked like Gepetto. The designers solved the problem. Not only the voice but the appearance of the character changed overnight.
on 04 May 2013 at 11:21 am 1.Elliot Cowan said …
Dahl’s books have mostly not fared well as adaptions.
There’s a jolly nastiness going on in most of them that doesn’t translate well to Hollywood films.
on 04 May 2013 at 3:19 pm 2.Charles Kenny said …
I agree with Elliot. Hollywood productions take liberties with the endings; The Witches by not leaving the kid a mouse and Matilda by letting her keep her powers, even though it’s nasty family that enables them in the book.
Dahl’s books have always tended to come up rather poorly on screen and I can’t help but think it’s because they would be better served by being animated rather than live action.
Consider the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory; a hit to be sure and a cult classic, but the film takes great liberties with the script for the sake of production realities. Burton’s version was more faithful, but included so much VFX, they may have well have just animated the entire thing.
To my mind, James and the Giant Peach is the best Dahl adaptation even if Henry Sellick put his usual dark spin on things. The story is faithful to the original and doesn’t attempt to pander to audiences.
I enjoyed Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox less so, but at least he put a blatantly original spin on the tale rather than attempting to pass of the effort as being faithful to the original.
on 04 May 2013 at 5:28 pm 3.Michael said …
I agree with you about adapting Roald Dahl’s work. Except for Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox. I absolutely love that film. To me it’s the perfect marriage of subject, filmmaker and style. I’ve seen it easily some ten times, and it doesn’t get old for me. James and the Giant Peach was good, but felt just a bit too sweet for me. I think he would do well in live action if someone can figure out how to write a script for one of his books.
on 04 May 2013 at 5:48 pm 4.Elliot Cowan said …
James and The Giant Peach is full of lovely stuff but is ultimately rushed and, as Michael suggests, a little too cute.
And, as usual, the film makers feel compelled to stray beyond the story and all that stuff looks jolly enough but it’s pointless.
Of course Mr Fox is guilty of this and it’s not a film I like much but a lot of folks sure do.
There’s an animated BFG but I’ve never seen it.
Richard Briars voices the hero giant which seems like a lovely idea.
As a kid I was put off by the fact that it didn’t look like Quentin Blakes illustrations.
I have seen production art from several artists for what I assume is a CG hybrid version floating around for years…
on 04 May 2013 at 6:08 pm 5.Mark said …
The only Dahl film translation worth watching is the original Mel Stuart version of “Willy Wonka.” It captures the bizarre realities of Dahl perfectly. And the worst was that awful Mr. Fox cartoon out a few years ago. Dull, witless, and frankly, ugly.
The new Gatsby film is truly awful, as well. I agree with Mr. Sporn. While the original film version was just bland, this one works hard to be NOT that, and sacrifices story and character for style that means nothing. It’s a tad more tolerable than that mess moulin rouge, and that dumb hugh jackman/nicole kidman australia movie.
on 05 May 2013 at 5:54 am 6.Michael said …
The animated BFG is, like most tv animation, boring. It moves at a slow pace and hits the story points but is so slow going that its limited animation can’t capture much more than tedium. Or, at lest, that’s my memory of it. Not even as good as those Canadian adaptations of THE HAPPY PRINCE or THE SELFISH GIANT.
on 05 May 2013 at 8:01 am 7.Elliot Cowan said …
As I a kid I loved the original Willy Wonka film and although I think hat Gene Wilder is terrific in it, I don’t think it’s very good.
It was one of a handful of films I was allowed to sit up late and watch when I was little.
I saw it so many times that I knew where all the ad breaks were.
on 05 May 2013 at 7:31 pm 8.Scott said …
The original Willy Wonka film is a great mix of fotune, taste, talent, bzarreness, and luck. It shouldn’t work–but does, beautifully. Mel Stuart’s wonderful book on the making of the film is a terrific read.