Guardians of the Galaxy 2

(warning: contains spoilers for Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2)

Ahhhh, that difficult second film...
After the surprise runaway hit of Guardians of the Galaxy (3 years ago.  Can you believe that?), Marvel have brought back the eponymous heroes for another film which hits the same high beats as the last one, while not getting drawn into the quagmire of "now we know the audience likes these people, let's bog them down in convoluted backstory and exposition".  The second Avengers film suffered from this ailment, and it's good to see that Marvel have side-stepped this time because this film is just fun. 

Yaaaaaaay!  Kaboom!  Pow!

The film opens with the same confident reliance on Starlord's Awesome Mix Tape (vol.2), and continues in a vein of nostalgia and pop culture references (Pac-Man, David Hasselhoff and Knight Rider to mention but three).  The plot is relatively light (Sovereign Race accept batteries in exchange for Nebula as hostage, Rocket steals batteries, chase ensues.  Meanwhile, Kurt Russell appears as Chris Pratt's estranged father... - yeah, written down that sounds weird)

The pop culture references are interesting ones.  I wonder about contemporary references, because its difficult to know how they will date a film.  If I was watching this film in 20 years time, will I necessarily recall the what is being referred to?  This is less of an issue in this film, because the references are already dated, but current culture is for nostalgia and retro, which may be part of the reason why the reaction to this film has been so joyous.  The opening scenes of the gang fighting over ELO's Mr Blue Sky was as confident and effective as Chris Pratt's dancing introduction to Redbone's Come and Get Your Love in the first film.  The audience reaction to this scene was one of utter delight in the screening I saw.

The main theme, as far as I could tell, was not a new one but it's telling was still engaging.  It was the ongoing struggle of defining what family is - family can be your biological relations, but they can also be the people that you gather around you.  Nature vs nurture.  Fate vs choice.  Biology vs circumstance.  It's a theme that plays out in a number of different ways: Gamora and Nebula are very cagey around each other due to events of the last film (and events of their entire lives together), and they both struggle to acknowledge each other as sisters, but by the end of the film they have tentatively begun to look at ways of changing their relationship with each other.  Starlord explores a relationship with Ego (his biological father), before realising that Yondu had been attempting to parent him throughout his life.  Drax continues to come to terms with the death of his family, and is looking for a replacement.  There are various endeavours to parent Baby Groot - from Gamora's nurturing of him, to Rocket's ill-advised life lessons, to Drax's constant watchfulness of him.  The characters that we already know are developed in small but significant ways as the film progresses.

Hey Baby Groot.  You are going to be very popular in merchandising...

I wasn't particularly convinced by the introduction to new character, Mantis.  An empath who can intuit the emotions of those around her by touch, she adds little to the plot although she did have some nice scenes.  The one where Drax mentioned his deceased family, and Mantis just cries in direct response, was particularly touching.  But short of helping the audience understand the characters a little better (and in no massive way that we wouldn't have guessed on our own), this character needs a little more work (especially given that she sounds pretty cool - read here)

For a film about a group of disparate individuals who are the Guardians of the Galaxy, it seems that the Galaxy doesn't need a lot of guarding.  Half the plot (the pursuit by the Sovereign Race) was an issue entirely of their own making.  That said, this was a welcome relief from the increasingly heavy world of Marvel - no mentions of politics, Infinity Stones, or the "everyone's turning against each other" plot devices of the Avengers crew.  Some films are a meal, and some films are just candyfloss - colourful, inconsequential, but tremendous fun.  Guess which one this is...

Enjoy...

Beauty and the Beast

(warning: contains spoilers for Beauty and the Beast.  1991 and 2017.  And probably some other Disney films too)

Bonjour!  Bonjour!  Bonjour, bonjour, bonjour!...

Following on from 2015’s Cinderella, and last year’s Jungle Book (for me, one of the best films of last year) the 1991 classic Beauty and the Beast is Disney’s latest attempt at making all their animated films live-action.   Cards on the table, I love the animated version of this film so I had mixed feelings about seeing the live action remake.  Should you mess with the classics?

Tale as old as time...

Back in the early 90’s, Beauty and the Beast marked a milestone for Disney – it is one of the most popular and beautiful animated films, with fantastic characters and a great soundtrack.  As such, it brought stability to Disney’s new Renaissance era, proving that the success of The Little Mermaid wasn’t a fluke, and returning to the idea of Disney films as family entertainment rather than “just for kids”.  Its use of computer animation convinced executives to invest more in computers (which in turn led to the behemoth that is Pixar – here showcasing early technology in the 3D-esque ballroom scene).  Subsequently, it became the first animated film to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar (long before the Best Animated Film category existed), and three of the songs from the soundtrack were nominated for Best Song (the Beauty and the Beast title track eventually winning).  Admittedly, the plot came with its own set of issues.  Number 1 is the overall message that if you stay in an angry abusive relationship, and be patient long enough, you will eventually be rewarded with a kind and loving person (and be rich.  And royal.  Win!).  Some more niggly plot points for the inner pedant can be found in this helpful Buzzfeed article.

One of the things that amused me in this film is that it appeared that the writers had read this list, and endeavoured to answer all the questions in it.  For example, in the opening explanatory monologue, the narrator is at pains to say that EVERYONE IN THE KINGDOM IS ENCHANTED AND THAT'S WHY NO ONE REMEMBERS THE GIANT CASTLE ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF TOWN!!  

So here we are, 16 years later looking at the live action version.  How does it compare?

In a lot of ways, it’s identical – beat for beat, note for note, word for word.  Thus begging the question, why bother?  If it’s not baroque, don’t fix it.  If we’re not being too cynical (by which I mean, coming up with an answer that isn’t “to make a ton of cash”), I would argue that advances in technology mean that new versions of films are possible (and, indeed, new films are possible – Life of Pi, Avatar, Gravity to quickly name three, could not be made 30 years ago but can now).  The Jungle Book (2016) was enhanced by computer technology - creating landscapes, environments and creatures that felt dangerous and predatory.  There is a certain amount of this in Beauty and the Beast – in a film where everything is enchanted, there is a place for technology to help convince the audience that a talking candlestick may once have been a man, and that an actor doesn't have to resort to wearing a mangy rug and stick fur all over his face to suggest that he is now a beast.  In some ways, "technology" is shorthand for "magic" in this film - every enchantment, every spell is computer generated.
That has its pros and cons - I prefer the animated characters with their easily distinguishable faces and limbs.  There's a bit more ambiguity about the live action versions of Cogsworth and Mrs Potts, but in other ways, their characteristics feel more organic (of course Mrs Pott's face is made from the detailed pattern on china - she's a teapot).  But that's just personal preference.

If you die after drinking the tea from the left hand pot, you know it was Angela Lansbury
killing all those people on Murder, She Wrote...

There are some differences - the story holds slightly closer to the original fairytale (Belle's father promises her a rose, which is why he finds himself drawn to the Beast's garden in the first place).  There is a small magical journey for both Belle and the Beast where they time travel (I think?) to Paris to visit the former home of Belle's parents (this didn't seem to add anything to the plot, but ok I guess?  Though if you had an enchanted book, wouldn't you just spend all your time travelling the world rather than being locked up and angry all the time?).
The enchantress makes reappearances at various points throughout the film to punish and protect various characters.

Two big storylines that featured heavily in the media were about sexuality and feminism.  The sexuality storyline is with regards to two "progressive" notes - both a bit confusing.  Beauty and the Beast (2017) heralded Disney's first (and second) interracial kiss.  Except it didn't, because surely that happened in Pocahontas?  But, if we don't count that (or Snow Dogs.  Or The Princess Diaries 2.), there are two interracial couples in this film.  Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and Plumette (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), and Madame de Garderobe (Audra McDonald) and Cadenza (Stanley Tucci) kiss both as their enchanted selves and as their human selves, and it's all very lovely and understated but it DEFINITELY happens, and it's not a big deal.  As interracial relationships should be. 

Film about relationship between woman and beast, but sure, let's get het up about the interracial stuff...

The second storyline is that Beauty and the Beast (2017) heralded Disney's first openly gay character (La Fou, played by Josh Gad).  For me, this one is a little more problematic because in order to appreciate that La Fou is gay, you need to already know that fact before you watch the film.  There is one scene, lasting three seconds, in which La Fou is dancing in the big closing number with everyone else in the cast, and turns to find himself facing a man.  That's...it?  I'm not saying that I need a graphic depiction to definitively demonstrate that La Fou is gay, and it didn't have to be a definitive plot point.  But the problem is this - if you didn't know already, you wouldn't know by the end of the film.  There is proof that the interracial kisses happened - you see them.  There is no proof that La Fou is gay - that is mere interpretation.  I refer to Doctor Who's recent statement by Steven Moffat who said "[a gay character] is the minimum amount of representation you should have...the correct response should be 'what took you so long'?" And in a franchise as big as Disney (who, remember, also own Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel), surely one gay character isn't too much to ask?  Particularly given that they made such a big deal of it?  Sorry, Disney, but that's poor.

Feminism is an equally problematic theme.  The 2017 update does have some nods to equality - but nothing particularly definitive.  This version of Belle also invents, but one thing and that's a washing machine (which would be fair enough, but we only see women doing laundry in this film so we can safely assume that laundry is considered "women's work" in this world).  And she passes up on laundry so she can teach a child to read (again, fair enough, but it's only the women who look after the children in this film, which underscores a belief that this too is women's work).  Belle 2017 does wear slightly more practical clothes than Belle 1991, she does protest about being put into flouncy dresses, but then revels in them the next scene.  Which, again, is fine - you can be a feminist in a dress.  You can be a feminist in trousers.  You can be a naked feminist if you so choose.  But I don't think you can claim feminism when your heroine just protests about something once and then never mentions it again.  Subvert the genre, don't subvert the genre, but don't make half-assed attempts at it and then shout about how feminist you are.

What she said.

Certainly the film feels more contemporary despite still being set in the past, and maybe I should give more credit to Disney for at least attempting to engage with these themes, even if they don't quite land.  I feel I've been quite damning of a film I enjoyed, and will probably own.  But for me, the live action Disney films score card reads one win (Jungle Book), one lose (Cinderella), and one draw (this one).