Pale Imitations: Oz the Great and Powerful

If you know me personally, or are fond of looking to the righthand side of websites. then you will know that I absolutely adore the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz; it was my favourite film in my most formative years and thus contributed inexorably to my sense of storytelling, humor and visual aesthetic. As such, you can imagine I was wary of Oz the Great and Powerful.

Let's start right at the beginning: the title is improperly punctuated. A noun followed by a description of that noun without an interceding copula requires a colon or a comma (for example, my school uniform list always specified 'shoes, brown'). You could argue that it's a title like 'Katherine the great' but these titles are usually limited to one specifier (Katherine the great, Ivan the terrible, Edward the confessor, etc.) and since the wizard from Oz is not normally referred by this title,  and thus people aren't used to be seeing this name written out like that, well, it just looks like you couldn't be bothered to put your movie pitch through a proper spell/grammar check. I understand not wanting to use a colon, as this might make this look like a sequel, but a comma would not detract from your film.

The content might, though. I will confess the film is funnier than I thought- I laughed out loud at least three times, almost exclusively at Zach Braff as the CGI monkey, Finlay, but other than that this film just irritated me. And the sad thing is, if this film existed in a vacuum, it would be fine. But, like a limpet on a rock, Oz the Great and Powerful has latched on for dear life and is begging to be associated with the latchee- but the rock it's chosen is a 24 carat emerald and, by comparison, the limpet attached just looks all the uglier. And this limpet isn't even paying its rock the proper respect. 

When Dorothy met the munchkins, there was rapturous joy on her face, she clapped along delightedly to their musical number- when James Franco sees them he makes fun of their singing. But that singing is part of what elevated The Wizard of Oz to a treasure and allowed this stupid film to be made. When Glinda first arrived in a bubble it was a moment of magic and high fantasy that tapped intoyour imagination. Here, it's a trick which Glinda admits is 'just for show' and that, yet again, annoys James Franco. Maybe be a little more courteous to the bandwagon on which you are riding?

But then, the aspects of the film that are outright imitations are pretty lame themselves: I've seen many a folk try to do an impression of Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West, and, honestly SPOILERS Mila Kunis' is among the worst. What made Hamilton so much fun was the sense of glee that her witch had- encapsulated perfectly in that infamous laugh. When Kunis tries that laugh out, it sounds like she's faking. And though we now get to see the Witch properly zoom around on her broom, it's closer to the Green Goblin from Spiderman (surprise, surprise, given the director) than the terrifying figure who wrote her wicked words in black smoke against the Emerald City skyline. James Franco is not trying to be Frank Morgan, and you'd think that that at least would be a blessing, but the character he cuts is so inanely douchey (it's just a series of smiles- some sarcastic, some not) that you kinda wish he had attempted to more like the old humbug. 

And then there's the fact that the plot doesn't make sense: SPOILERS Evanora, the wicked witch of the East, framed Glinda for the murder of her father and then chased her away; this is presumably so her much more powerful sister, Theodora, will stand with her against Glinda.  But then Evanora sends her hordes of flying monkeys from her personal home in the Emerald city anyway, so Theodora will know she's behind the mass destruction of Oz anyway. And then, when Glinda comes back, she bests Evanora in a magic duel anyway, with no outside help or new magic she's learnt in the interim, so why didn't she just do that in the first place?

And finally, we wade into the muddy waters of ethics. The Wizard of Oz is surprisingly sound, feminism-wise: strong but non-violent female protagonist with no love interest, fighting another woman, saves the men several times (gets saved herself, too, but at least it's even), and whose primary aid comes in the form of a woman. In Oz the Great and Powerful, James Franco tricks Mila Kunis into getting physical with him by pretending to love her. He sees no need to disillusion her about her presumptions that they'll be together forever. He uses her, is what I'm saying. She's understandably angry when she finds out. However, she is punished for her clinginess by being turned 'hideous'. James Franco is never punished for his deception. No one ever points out that the creation of the wicked witch of the west is, in fact, entirely his fault. And, as we know from The Wizard of Oz, he later has her killed. And yet, we're supposed to cheer when he drives the witch of the west away from the city WHICH IS HER HOME. I have some real problems with that.

Overall, the only thing this film has going for it is a few moments of humor and visual effects. Both can be found, and in greater quantities, in other films. The Wizard of Oz springs to mind- no idea why.

The bigger they are: Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas. I saw this on the recommendation of my friend, Daryl. And I would be quite angry with him were he not the one who provided my lovely profile pic.
To understand why this film failed, one first has to understand that the full scope of its ambitions: this film uses one core set of actors (all very talented and most quite famous), and then gets them to play a different character, sometimes bending gender and even race, in a series of different stories that are supposedly interconnected- these segments are all in different time periods, and, perhaps more daringly, different genres. Some of these segments could've made entire films on their own- I want to see a full length feature of The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish (an old man is tricked into entering a nursing home ruled over by a tryannical Hugo Weaving in drag) with the exact same cast. Oh, and one of these segments isn't in Present Day English.
Let's start with that, because as a Linguist, this concept fascinates me, but it just makes no sense. I don't know enough about language trends to accurately predict what future English will sound like, so they may have got it spot on. But then, why in the other future segment do they speak Present Day English? Especially since it's set in Korea? Honestly, the cryptospeak just irritated me- especially because Tom Hanks decided to mutter through that segment (only marginally worse than his Irish accent); it was confusing enough to try and decipher what was happening in that section (it was the only one which was pure fantasy, with an appearance from the devil himself).
And then there's the re-use of the cast. The film seems to want to have a theme of reincarnation, and the re-casting thing could have been an obvious, but effective, visual metaphor for that. But then, that's not actually what the recasting is for. Because the actors don't play the same character in every time line: Tom Hanks is the villain in the earliest story, but a hero the rest of the time. We all adore Jim Broadbent in the present day segment, but detest him in the 1930's. But then, we're meant to just always hate Hugo Weaving? Who, it's finally revealed, is the devil.
One couple is together in every story line, but the gay couple only meet once (we'll get to that in a second), even though one of the gay lovers ends his life (spare me) declaring that he'll meet his lover again. They never do.
Or do they? Because then, it's sort of hinted that the character bearing the comet birthmark is the same person in every time line, even though this character is nearly always played by a different actor. But then WHY CAST THE SAME ACTORS IN EVERY STORY LINE?!! (P.S. If you think you lack the context to understand what I'm saying, know that possessing the context does not make anything better).
You could say I'm being simplistic and that I should cherish a film that challenges me. I don't mind not having everything signposted for me: I object to artists employing techniques (like double-casting) just to be buggery. Art made for the sole purpose of confusing people is not worth my time.
And then we come to delicate issues of race and sexuality. I'm just gonna say it- as well as being incendiary and possibly offensive, the race lift make-up is just ugly. It makes the characters look ridiculous. I laughed at Hugo Weaving in asia face. It wasn't threatening, it was just stupid. The unfortunate implications of the race lifts are, I think, mostly mollified by the fact that actors of all races are made up to look like all other races, so it is, at the very least, equal opportunities discrimination.
The homophobia, however, is not so balanced. There were, as far as I could tell (not really all that far- this film was just befuddling), three main couples in the film: Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess and Doona Bae and Ben Whishaw and James D'arcy. One of these things is not like the others: for one thing, it's the only non-interrace relationship in there, so kudos for that. But it's also the only homosexual relationship. And it's the only relationship which doesn't work out in any time-line, and in fact ends in suicide (seriously, spare me). The problem with gay tragedies is that it shows homophobia (the force which leads to said suicide) as being more powerful than gay love; this film then adds insult to insult by insinuating that gay love isn't as strong as heterosexual love, since it doesn't reach through time the way the other couples do. In fact, the two gay characters don't even meet in any of the other storylines. Nil points.
All in all, this film just tries way too hard and fails accordingly. If they hadn't tried to be so fancy with the double-casting, it might just have been lightly scrambled, but they were too clever for their own good and ended up with egg all over the floor.

Black Magic Women: Beautiful Creatures

Beautiful creatures. Ugh.

 














 




This film could very easily have discussed very interesting moral questions, and thrown in some cool supernatural action set pieces to boot.
It chose not to.
First off, I just want to point out the sex-negativity prevalent even in the film's advertising, pictured above. The girl on the left, Ridley, is one of the film's villains. Look at how she's dressed, and read her tag-line: 'temptation is impossible to resist'. Lena, on the right, is the film's heroine. Low at how she's dressed, and read her tag-line: 'True love is a force to be reckoned with' (spare me). During the film, Ridley explicit seduces a man in an alleyway to accomplish her fiendish ends. I'd really hoped we were past this. I did.
The film's conceit is that female witches (I refuse to pay this film the courtesy of indulging its stabs at being distinctive and naming them 'casters'), when they turn sixteen, will be claimed by either 'light' or 'dark' forces; apparently, men can choose which side they're on.
Ignoring the misogyny inherent in that premise, let's look at the ethical debate which this story line references: its clearly about determinism, and the ol' 'are people born wicked? Or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?' line. I haven't really seen this discussed much in fiction not aimed at adults- although J.K. Rowling pretty much admits Voldermort was evil from birth due to being concieved under a love potion, so I guess this story isn't entirely peerless.
But then Beautiful Creatures doesn't bother to go into the issues surrounding determinism: SPOILERS Lena quite happily murders her mother, Seraphine, the film's main antagonist, even though we're told that Seraphine was claimed, against her will, by a curse that made it impossible for her to be good. When Ridley, Lena's cousin and Seraphine's lackey, asks to be let go, she invokes how she used to be a good person. She deliberately isolated herself so she wouldn't hurt people. SHE HAD NO CHOICE ABOUT BEING EVIL; the same is true of Seraphine, but Lena callously ends her life anyway.
Indeed, the only reason Lena is saved from the curse is the intervention of her uncle (more misogyny? perhaps)- the scene could've been spared by a 'there but for the grace of Jeremy Irons go I', but this is skipped for more of the insipid romance.
Romance which leads to statutory rape, may I point out. This film is kind of repugnant.


But what of the actual content? It's lacking.
Lena and what's-his-face are dull. They're given the odd funny line, but these are more than matched by the sheer number of 'I'll always love you' moments, which, though perhaps characteristic of teenage romance, are not particularly engaging to watch onscreen.
Emma Thompson is quite clearly having fun. Much more than the audience, at any rate. I think perhaps Richard LaGravenese, the director, who also wrote Voyage of the Dawn Treader and thus has earnt a place on my naughty list, was a bit star struck by Miss Thompson and didn't dare direct her, for fear she ditch this atrocious nonsense and make a proper film. She quite literally dances about the screen, gleeful in her evil- normally, I have a weakness for such performances, but here it just feels shoe-horned in to counteract the sheer monotony of the leads. 
The premise could quite easily lead to some epic magic battles; however, we're told early on that Lena is the most powerful caster ever (she demonstrates this by spinning a table) and so no one can really threaten her and, indeed, no one does. SPOILERS They sort of try and make her the main threat in this film, but then she's completely claimed for good and so will presumably now just crush all evil in one fell swoop. I have no idea how this is a series. 
Honestly, this film is boring and my problems with its ethics just make it offensive and boring, which is pretty much the worst thing a film can be. Don't think it'll enter the lexicon of worst movies ever, though; it's far, far too forgettable. In a year, no one will remember it and honestly that's all it deserves.