The Big Sick

(Warning: contains spoilers for The Big Sick)

It’s difficult to know where to start with real-life stories in films.  Can they be critiqued in the same way as a completely fictional film?  In the case of The Big Sick, it is a real-life story about a real-life event, where the writer and producer is the main character.  So…even if parts don’t make sense, or characters seem odd, that’s how it happened, right?

Image for The Big Sick

The Big Sick is an independent, inter-racial rom-com about the relationship between Kumail (played by Kumail Nanjiani), and Emily (Zoe Kazan), who meet, date and break up.  At the point of their break-up, the eponymous Big Sick appears and Emily winds up in a medically induced coma.  Unsure of whether to go (they have broken up after all) or stay (because he is a decent human being who wants to check if his ex is ok), he winds up meeting Emily’s parents - Beth and Terry - (Ray Romano and Holly Hunter) and the three become close while sharing this complicated, unfamiliar situation.

Other image you get if you Google The Big Sick

Beth and Terry are some of the most understandable and sympathetic characters in the film.  In the absence of being able to do anything useful for their daughter they resort to various fruitless tasks, keen to just fill in the time until she wakes up.  Terry diligently writes down every jargony medical term and medication used ("is that with a 'ph' or with an 'f'?") in an allocated notebook, while Beth ponders whether the hospital is the best one for her daughter ("it's ranked seventh") and tries to out-think the hospital staff. Initially suspicious of Kumail ("she tells us everything"), their relationship together is hesitant and sweet and becomes a different kind of parental as they go to watch Kumail's open-mic comedy performances, where they tackle Islamophobia and hecklers in a way that only parents would.  Through spending time with Emily's parents, Kumail realises how little he knows about his own and begins to rectify that in small ways, like asking which film they met at during their first arranged date.

Running parallel to this story line are two other storyline threads (and they do run parallel because those threads don't really converge).  One is about Kumail’s ongoing pursuit of being a stand-up comedian, playing open mic nights and hoping to get his big break while working for Uber to pay the rent.  The other (significantly more interesting) thread is Kumail’s family dynamic.  Kumail’s parents - Azmat and Sharmeen (Anupam Kher and Zenobia Schroff) are from Pakistan, and have moved to America to give their children more opportunities.  But they have strong ideas about their children maintaining Pakistani traditions - and every Friday night, Kumail's mum invites a girl to "just pop over" to meet him (with a photograph, resume, and ideally a semi decent knowledge of The X Files), in the hope it will lead to an arranged marriage with someone from the same culture ("in Pakistan, we just call it marriage").  Kumail's parents are unaware that he is dating Emily.  Emily is unaware that Kumail's parents are setting up an arranged marriage for him.

The development of Kumail's struggle between his Pakistani and American heritage is an interesting one, and certainly gives The Big Sick a unique selling point.  As a theme, it's been recently played out in Aziz Ansari's Master of None and poses a number of interesting points.  Kumail faces small, potentially racist comments and assumptions throughout the film which he bats away with weary good humour.  Some are well intentioned (Terry trying and failing to connect to Kumail:  "So...9/11...I've always wanted to...talk to someone [like you] about that."), some are more malicious (like the heckler who tells him to go back to ISIS "because of how he looks").  Kumail's parents acknowledge that they wanted their children to grow up in America, but constantly point out in small ways how Pakistan is better ("kulfi is better than icecream").  Kumail is keen to keep up appearances - he doesn't pray, but leads his parents to believe he does.  He doesn't want to break up with Emily, but is happy to let his mother continue to set him up every Friday night without fail.  He rejects their ideals, telling his audience one evening that he knows his career choice is not approved of ("it goes doctor, engineer, lawyer...a thousand other jobs...ISIS, then comedian"), but he still clings on to his heritage, performing in an excruciating one-man show ("do you feel that - that's the weight of Pakistan's history") for no real reason that's ever explained (and I wish had been explored more).  Certainly, a rejection of his parent's culture equals a rejection of them, and although this storyline plays out in the loosest of terms, there is a lot more to be mined here.  (For example, there is an odd moment where they speak Urdu in front of one of the many Pakistani suitors paraded in front of Kumail, not considering that someone from a similar culture and background would probably speak Urdu too, revealing perhaps a small insight into their own views on their American homeland.)  Understandably, if this is one of the "real-life" parts of the film, maybe this is not something that Nanjiani is ready to explore further yet. 

Co-produced by Judd Apatow, there are a lot of Apatow-esque tropes at play here.  Kumail would live happily in most Apatow productions, with his Shaun of the Dead poster, lack of furniture, dishevelled living arrangements, and unparalleled knowledge of B-list horror movies.  He slowly learns to better connect with those around him, and by the end of the film is taking a more active role in his own life (rather than allowing it to passively happen to him).  So far, so Apatow, and I have no qualms about any of those things (other than wishing Kumail would make his bed and wash his sheets).

Not art.  Not a good night's sleep either.

The more unfortunate Apatow trope at play is the portrayal of women, which isn't great.  There are 4 women to speak of - Emily, Beth, Sharmeen and Mary (a friend from stand up).  There are also a small parade of rejected suitors for Kumail.  Mary serves to further Kumail's stand up plot and not much else.  Beth and Sharmeen are good characters who become more interesting when described by their husbands (although definitely the most well defined women of the film).   The strangest thing to me in this whole film (and perhaps why this film hasn't particularly stayed with me) is that I have no real sense of who Emily is.  The film revolves around her, but by the end I know little of her as a girlfriend, a friend, a daughter.  She works as a Domestic Violence Support Worker (a very specific job title which is never mentioned again), and...maybe that's it.  There is little focus on her in hospital, there are no bedside vigils, there are no stories about what Emily is like.  This could be fine - it could be billed as a story about Kumail, Emily's parents, Kumail's parents, those interactions, the clash of two different cultures.  In which case the Big Sick of the title would just be the maguffin that catalysed the plot.  But it's described as a rom-com.  And although there is rom, and com, it's with a very thinly sketched Emily.  Again, maybe it's still too hard to write - it is, after all the real-life Emily and Kumail writing the story.  I do wonder what real-life Emily makes of this production.

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

1. The quote on the Shaun of the Dead poster ("an absolute blast") was from zombie-meister George A Romero.
2. Adeel Akhtar seems to have been singled out for praise in some of the reviews I've read, but I can't actually remember his contribution to the plot.
3. The moment where Kumail tried to see Emily's apartment through her parents eyes (and edit accordingly) was quite sweet (as he hid a bag of cannabis from sight).
4. There is a good film in here.  But maybe the rom-com is dead? 

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).