The other is a shot of a lizard with some intense blur which is straight-out-of-camera, though I messed with the colors and such in PhotoShop.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Pictures from April
The two pictures I entered into our Photo Group last month, one illustrating the effects of different apertures on the depth of field- see how the background behind the lights blurs as the aperture gets larger? (Aperture gets larger as the f/# gets smaller)
The other is a shot of a lizard with some intense blur which is straight-out-of-camera, though I messed with the colors and such in PhotoShop.
The other is a shot of a lizard with some intense blur which is straight-out-of-camera, though I messed with the colors and such in PhotoShop.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
REVIEW: The King's Speech
This is one of the better films I've seen in a while.The Worldview
The Good
The family relationships in this film were beautiful to behold. After a steady diet of films modeling rebellious teens, feministic women, and either tyrannical or weak fathers, this film was a breath of fresh air. The king's daughters treasure him, his wife supports him, and he, speech impediment and all, is still a loving, kind, but strong Dad. There are a couple possible slight hints of feminism, but overall I really enjoyed the relationship between the king and queen. She was an encouraging, supportive, and strong helper to her husband- he was a loving leader who in the end faces his fears and successfully broadcasts.
The speech therapist, too, has a great relationship with- *gasp*- his teenage son! Wow! Indeed, his entire family was again a refreshing model of love and unity as a household. There was one son who had a bit of 'tude, but even he can't help but smile at his father's Shakespeare interpretations.
The older brother of our hero is an immoral and loose man- but he's also portrayed as a confused and weak man, at best. Handsome, yes, dashing, and able to speak much better than his brother- but without anywhere near the depth of character, and the film brings that out well.
I was really happy to see the portrayal of a healthy, close relationship between two men without a bunch of allusions to homosexual perversion. They were not only both married, but they were very much in love with their wives and families. They were just good friends! Refreshing- and it's sad that it's such a rarity anymore.
We also see the simple power of speech being illustrated. "Like apples of gold in settings of silver..."
Again, this film was simply a breath of fresh air from a worldview perspective.
The overall sermon of the film? I guess it would be something like we need to conquer our fears and do what needs to be done, and friends can be very helpful in this- all very true!
The Bad
The swearing is what gave this film its R (which is now a PG-13- apparently an edited version was released?). Looking at a site like Kids-In-Mind the film looks like it must be littered with filthy language. As it is, there is one scene with highly concentrated swearing- the king-to-be is with his speech therapist and the speech therapist starts him swearing, presumably to loosen him up. Colin Firth then rattles off a stream of curse words, with his therapist's encouragement, in a rant that ends with him looking bashful and the boys in the other room asking their dad if everything is OK. There are a few other curse words throughout the film, but that's the main part, and it's cast in a highly humorous light. Definitely not the same as an angry Jason Bourne or Will Hunting swearing throughout the film.
Which brings up a good question that I ponder... would God laugh at that scene? I know I did. I thought it was hilarious. Maybe I shouldn't. May God continue to refine!
Really, without that scene, a few other curse words, and some mild discussion of adult themes, the film could have been PG, easily.
The worldview of modern psychology seeps in through the speech therapist. He seems to blame much of what has happened to the king in his past for what he's going through now. While it is good for us to realize just how much we affect our siblings and children, ultimately the king is responsible before God for living in fear. Be careful lest we say- rightly so!- that his parents, his siblings, his nurses were cruel, and then conclude that it's their fault. It is still his responsibility to respond to life from a God-centered perspective. They did wrong, yes. It's not an excuse for him to shirk responsibility as well.
There were a couple parts that were a bit irreverent to God- especially their line on the poster, "When God couldn't save The King, The Queen turned to someone who could." Not good, not funny. Fear God and tremble before you say that He cannot do anything. (In fact... who are you to say that God didn't save the king by sending the someone who could?)Probably my biggest issue, though, was that when the king- not the king whom the film centers on, but his older brother, who held the throne for a short time- is living an immoral life, and wants to marry a divorced woman, which as the (unBiblical) head of the Church he is forbidden to do, the comments of the heroes of the film are along the lines of "I don't care who you carry on with at night so long as you do your kingly duties in the morning." That's not OK. What you do at night is just as much a part of you (maybe more!) as what you do in the day. All of it must be submitted to God.
The Art
The Good
Wow. Lots. The cinematography was striking, distinctive, and beautiful- the sets grand and believable. The use of the fisheye lens was very effective and fitting to the story- it made the king look all the more awkward and lonely.
The score by Alexandré Desplat was beautiful and fitting. Much enjoyed by yours truly.
The acting was excellent. Colin Firth really sold his part.
It was definitely a first-class film, artistically.
The Bad
Honestly... there was very, very little about this film, if anything, that I didn't like from an artistic perspective.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. With cautions as to the language being given, I still heartily recommend it. 4.5/5
Thursday, April 28, 2011
MUSIC - White Hat Dark Sky
A piece for open skies, shimmering horizons, and a lone rider with a gun on his hip.
White Hat Dark Sky
Daniel Tekunoff, guitar - http://www.guitarmusicaz.com/home.php
White Hat Dark Sky
Daniel Tekunoff, guitar - http://www.guitarmusicaz.com/home.php
Sunday, April 24, 2011
REVIEW: Megamind
This one should have been called Tangled.
Megamind, by Dreamworks, is a wild, weird film. Some of it, like the poster at left, is downright hilarious. Some parts are remarkably well-done. Otherparts- less so. Overall, the film left me disturbed and feeling... dirty. So. Into the "labrynthian mind" of the film. (shameless SPOILERS ahead)
The Worldview
The Good
I really enjoyed the exchange between Megamind and Metro Man when Metro Man was trapped in the observatory. "You can't trap justice! It's an idea..." Nevertheless, this idea must be founded on God's Word, or it's just... well, a good idea.
We also see that we are responsible with what we do in our lives- it's not destiny's fault. It's not up to fate. We are to be judged by our actions. This is an important thing to understand, and a good moral.
The Bad
So we get Metro Man, who can violate the laws of nature at will (which is only explicable by the supernatural, and yet that power is transferred to someone else via Metro Man's DNA...), and we get Megamind, who has, basically, supernatural intelligence. These gods descended from Olympus then duel for the fate of mankind, and we, like ants, watch helplessly.
Metro Man and Megamind act like actors in a over-rehearsed play. They're not really scared. They're not really hurting anybody. Megamind doesn't expect to win, and when he does, after the first thrill of success, he realizes that he now has nothing to live for (amidst an existentialist discussion with a toy bird. More on that in a sec). Metro Man later calls Megamind "little buddy". This is odd. Is Megamind really a bad guy? He's the hero, but he's in jail, and he breaks out amidst some "b-b-bad to the bone", and yet the hero acts like his pal. This is blurring lines seriously.
It is during Megamind's duel with Tighten, however, where we really see the "gods from Olympus" syndrome. Towers are broken, buildings are burned, cars are smashed, and while they don't show it we may assume that many are killed. This is very dark and, ultimately, unScriptural. Let us rejoice that we do not have a fickle and capricious God ruling over us. These creatures with "god-like power" (yes, that was in the film) are not bound by man's (or God's moral or natural) laws, and they break them with impunity. There's no hope for a righteous man to stand up and bring justice. We just have to hope (pray, maybe, to our... benevolent aliens???) for another Metro Man.
Existentialism. What is is. The existentialist believes (as I understand it) that there is no God, there is no judgment to come, there is nothing beyond the physical, there is no ultimate and inviolable Law. This gives way readily to pragmatism, where the ends justify the means, and paints a bleak picture of a world left to chance and the whims of the strong.
There is also some eastern mysticism in the film. Yin and Yang- where there is bad good will arise. This leaves us with "bad guys and good guys are two parts of the same whole." Everybody has some good in 'em, right? Well, except for Tighten, because we have to make him bad enough that the audience will be glad when he loses. And even he, in the end, is apparently having a blast in jail.
Irreverence, toward the elderly in the minor way of the lisp in Hal's "Space Dad", but much more destructively in Metro Man, when he walks on water, and Megamind- "Who is this man whom we have infused with god-like power?" Not only does the film act as if God does not exist, but it really creates gods out of its hero/villains.
And there's another problem. The Cool Bad Guy Syndrome (CBGS). It was even worse in this one than with Flynn in Tangled.
Megamind, by Dreamworks, is a wild, weird film. Some of it, like the poster at left, is downright hilarious. Some parts are remarkably well-done. Otherparts- less so. Overall, the film left me disturbed and feeling... dirty. So. Into the "labrynthian mind" of the film. (shameless SPOILERS ahead)The Worldview
The Good
I really enjoyed the exchange between Megamind and Metro Man when Metro Man was trapped in the observatory. "You can't trap justice! It's an idea..." Nevertheless, this idea must be founded on God's Word, or it's just... well, a good idea.
We also see that we are responsible with what we do in our lives- it's not destiny's fault. It's not up to fate. We are to be judged by our actions. This is an important thing to understand, and a good moral.
The Bad
The counterpoint to above point- this film brought out some serious humanism/Nietzscheism. It begins blaming many events on fate- it's because of fate that Megamind is a bad guy. It's because of fate that Hal gets blasted with the superhero potion. Happily, this is later on reversed, but is replaced with the philosophy that we are masters of our own destiny, which is only a good moral if understood as our responsibility in the light of and in subjection to God's Sovereign Will and Providence.
The Super-Intelligent E.T. Philosophy. This is a school of thinking rooted in evolution with quite dark repercussions for us the viewers. "If we evolved then surely other intelligent life has evolved elsewhere in the universe!"
The Super-Intelligent E.T. Philosophy. This is a school of thinking rooted in evolution with quite dark repercussions for us the viewers. "If we evolved then surely other intelligent life has evolved elsewhere in the universe!"
So we get Metro Man, who can violate the laws of nature at will (which is only explicable by the supernatural, and yet that power is transferred to someone else via Metro Man's DNA...), and we get Megamind, who has, basically, supernatural intelligence. These gods descended from Olympus then duel for the fate of mankind, and we, like ants, watch helplessly.
Metro Man and Megamind act like actors in a over-rehearsed play. They're not really scared. They're not really hurting anybody. Megamind doesn't expect to win, and when he does, after the first thrill of success, he realizes that he now has nothing to live for (amidst an existentialist discussion with a toy bird. More on that in a sec). Metro Man later calls Megamind "little buddy". This is odd. Is Megamind really a bad guy? He's the hero, but he's in jail, and he breaks out amidst some "b-b-bad to the bone", and yet the hero acts like his pal. This is blurring lines seriously.
It is during Megamind's duel with Tighten, however, where we really see the "gods from Olympus" syndrome. Towers are broken, buildings are burned, cars are smashed, and while they don't show it we may assume that many are killed. This is very dark and, ultimately, unScriptural. Let us rejoice that we do not have a fickle and capricious God ruling over us. These creatures with "god-like power" (yes, that was in the film) are not bound by man's (or God's moral or natural) laws, and they break them with impunity. There's no hope for a righteous man to stand up and bring justice. We just have to hope (pray, maybe, to our... benevolent aliens???) for another Metro Man.Megamind, who is the hero by the end of the film, during his bad-guy stage at the beginning was playing darts with peoples' cars, desecrating property, stealing art, and enjoying every bit of it. He never repents, he just... changes. Kinda. Never is what he did shown as anything more than funny, in a superbly evil sort of way.
Existentialism. What is is. The existentialist believes (as I understand it) that there is no God, there is no judgment to come, there is nothing beyond the physical, there is no ultimate and inviolable Law. This gives way readily to pragmatism, where the ends justify the means, and paints a bleak picture of a world left to chance and the whims of the strong.
There is also some eastern mysticism in the film. Yin and Yang- where there is bad good will arise. This leaves us with "bad guys and good guys are two parts of the same whole." Everybody has some good in 'em, right? Well, except for Tighten, because we have to make him bad enough that the audience will be glad when he loses. And even he, in the end, is apparently having a blast in jail.
The good guy can't kill the bad guy- good guys don't do that. They take 'em to jail. How is jail Scriptural? The civil magistrate should punish the villain according to God's Law- and sometimes that means by death. Interestingly enough, when we're talking "gods from Olympus", the civil magistrate can't do this. The police are helpless. We need Batman, or Superman, or Metro Man, or somebody who's awesome enough to take down the bad guy- whatever the cost. More pragmatism. (And there's another reason I like Bolt- he's not anything more than just a man who did what's right.)
Irreverence, toward the elderly in the minor way of the lisp in Hal's "Space Dad", but much more destructively in Metro Man, when he walks on water, and Megamind- "Who is this man whom we have infused with god-like power?" Not only does the film act as if God does not exist, but it really creates gods out of its hero/villains.
And there's another problem. The Cool Bad Guy Syndrome (CBGS). It was even worse in this one than with Flynn in Tangled.
From the trailer: "All men must choose between two paths. Good is the path of honour, heroism, and nobility. Evil... well, it's just cooler." Um- I'm sorry. Evil is evil. Evil will be destroyed in the wrath of a just and holy God. It's not OK for us to portray it as cool.
The crude humor. It wasn't dealt out in spades, but they gave some good spoonfuls. For example, when Tighten (Hal), enjoying his new-found superpowers, is giving himself a wedgie and saying "look, I can hardly feel it!"- I'm left with a feeling of ugh. They could have taken the exact same well-acted vocal line and shown Hal banging his head off of the wall- "look, I can hardly feel it!"- and it would have been more hilarious and far less dirty. A desire for holiness doesn't mean that we can't enjoy hilarity- though it will take more work to create humor that pleases God. I have been convicted recently over my sense of humor, which is sometimes not as sanctified as I think God would have it to be. I'm also grateful to people like those at HeuMoore Productions who make hilarious films without crudeness, and speakers like Mr. Ray Comfort and others who model dignity while still being quite funny.
The crude humor. It wasn't dealt out in spades, but they gave some good spoonfuls. For example, when Tighten (Hal), enjoying his new-found superpowers, is giving himself a wedgie and saying "look, I can hardly feel it!"- I'm left with a feeling of ugh. They could have taken the exact same well-acted vocal line and shown Hal banging his head off of the wall- "look, I can hardly feel it!"- and it would have been more hilarious and far less dirty. A desire for holiness doesn't mean that we can't enjoy hilarity- though it will take more work to create humor that pleases God. I have been convicted recently over my sense of humor, which is sometimes not as sanctified as I think God would have it to be. I'm also grateful to people like those at HeuMoore Productions who make hilarious films without crudeness, and speakers like Mr. Ray Comfort and others who model dignity while still being quite funny.
And, though I know that I'll have readers who disagree, we have another model feminist. Roxanne, shown in plenty-tight-enough (but more covered up than some of her other wardrobe choices in the film) clothing at left, is apparently out making a career for herself as a reporter.
Yes, I am a proponent of home-keeping mothers and bread-winning fathers. Yes, I'm a proponent of male headship. (Oy, I just can't stop stepping on toes.) Does this mean that women should sit at home knitting all the time? No. But Miss Roxie should "get married, bear children, keep house, give the enemy no occasion for reproach." Why does this seem like such an onerous calling? Maybe because we've watched one- or fifty- too many Megaminds.
She's hanging out with the cameraman all the time. He goes bad when she denies him. There's a good moral to be drawn here. Spend enough time with someone, you will tie heartstrings, most likely. Be careful with whom these strings are tied, and how tight you allow the knots to become!
I would have loved it if she were married to the cameraman... there's helping her husband.
Short hair again. And you say, "What's with the short hair? Leave it alone already!" Well, I have no desire to offend! Yet I cannot remain silent because I might hurt feelings. Paul says "if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her", and I want to embrace that as much as I want to embrace that it would be shameful for me to grow a three-foot-lo
She's hanging out with the cameraman all the time. He goes bad when she denies him. There's a good moral to be drawn here. Spend enough time with someone, you will tie heartstrings, most likely. Be careful with whom these strings are tied, and how tight you allow the knots to become!
I would have loved it if she were married to the cameraman... there's helping her husband.
Short hair again. And you say, "What's with the short hair? Leave it alone already!" Well, I have no desire to offend! Yet I cannot remain silent because I might hurt feelings. Paul says "if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her", and I want to embrace that as much as I want to embrace that it would be shameful for me to grow a three-foot-lo
ng ponytail. If someone can give me Scripture to show me otherwise- please, bring it to the table! As it is, I'm tired of this being modeled as good-looking for women- normal for women- feminine. Period.
The Art
The Good
The animation of the fishbowl was very neat looking and impressive. The falling scene at the beginning was a great shot as well.
The story was very unique and full of different twists on old themes. I really enjoyed the freshness of the concept.
The voice acting and sound design was good.
I've been noticing a running theme of cute characters in these animations. Dug in UP, the frog-chameleon-nuance in Tangled, Minion in Megamind, Rhino in Bolt, and so on. Very smart move by the filmmakers. They nailed the cute character in this one. Minion is admittedly adorable.
And some of the humor was both clean and hilarious. Some great scripting, hilarious stereotypes, and excellently-acted banter between heroes and villains.
The Bad
The animation wasn't bad, but I wouldn't consider it great, and our main characters had a touch of animé that I didn't enjoy.
The resurrection of the fish I have mixed feelings on. It made more sense than the resurrection of (SPOILING another film now) Flynn in Tangled, but it also seemed more forced. Again, the death of Minion would have added some gravitas to the end. Could have been a heartbreaker. Instead, it wound up a semi-cheesy, rather predictable, and underwhelming joke. Here we have the fish acting like he's dying, Megamind acting worried, the fish gasps his last- and then Megamind tosses him into the fountain and laughs about his acting, and then we admire the fish's cute face. It seemed to be... just odd. Uncomfortable. Too stark of a contrast, maybe? There were multiple moments of such inconsistency in Megamind's character that bugged me from an artistic standpoint. If Minion's theatricality had been referenced and experienced a few times previously, this might have made more sense.
The score was unique. The main theme was weird. I like it, but I don't know if I like that I like it. The rest of the score fit well, but something about it bugs me.
The source music. Ugh. The film was filled with rock songs from days gone by. It seemed to, at least in parts, be an attempt to parallel the Joker's behavior in Tim Burton's Batman. Again, how fitting that rock music be associated with pride, destruction, and all-around evildoing. This not only cheapened the feel of the film, but it made it darker and more disturbing than it would have been without.
Altogether,
The Art
The Good
The animation of the fishbowl was very neat looking and impressive. The falling scene at the beginning was a great shot as well.
The story was very unique and full of different twists on old themes. I really enjoyed the freshness of the concept.
The voice acting and sound design was good.
I've been noticing a running theme of cute characters in these animations. Dug in UP, the frog-chameleon-nuance in Tangled, Minion in Megamind, Rhino in Bolt, and so on. Very smart move by the filmmakers. They nailed the cute character in this one. Minion is admittedly adorable.
And some of the humor was both clean and hilarious. Some great scripting, hilarious stereotypes, and excellently-acted banter between heroes and villains.
The Bad
The animation wasn't bad, but I wouldn't consider it great, and our main characters had a touch of animé that I didn't enjoy.
The resurrection of the fish I have mixed feelings on. It made more sense than the resurrection of (SPOILING another film now) Flynn in Tangled, but it also seemed more forced. Again, the death of Minion would have added some gravitas to the end. Could have been a heartbreaker. Instead, it wound up a semi-cheesy, rather predictable, and underwhelming joke. Here we have the fish acting like he's dying, Megamind acting worried, the fish gasps his last- and then Megamind tosses him into the fountain and laughs about his acting, and then we admire the fish's cute face. It seemed to be... just odd. Uncomfortable. Too stark of a contrast, maybe? There were multiple moments of such inconsistency in Megamind's character that bugged me from an artistic standpoint. If Minion's theatricality had been referenced and experienced a few times previously, this might have made more sense.The score was unique. The main theme was weird. I like it, but I don't know if I like that I like it. The rest of the score fit well, but something about it bugs me.
The source music. Ugh. The film was filled with rock songs from days gone by. It seemed to, at least in parts, be an attempt to parallel the Joker's behavior in Tim Burton's Batman. Again, how fitting that rock music be associated with pride, destruction, and all-around evildoing. This not only cheapened the feel of the film, but it made it darker and more disturbing than it would have been without.
Altogether,
I wasn't impressed with the film. While the story was a neat and fresh concept, the worldview was disturbing, and it felt overall B-grade. I wouldn't recommend this one. 2.5/5
Thursday, April 21, 2011
MUSIC - On The Other Side O' The Brae
Enjoy Celtic music? This one might make you smile. Enjoy, and let me know what you think.
On The Other Side O' The Brae
On The Other Side O' The Brae
Friday, April 15, 2011
REVIEW: Tangled
This is a film that I've heard a lot of controversy and debate over, so I was excited to see it for meself. Review, here I come- and SPOILERS, here I come as well.
The Worldview
The Good
Rapunzel's father and mother love their daughter and want her to return. When she does, we learn that she, basically, carried on her parents' vision for the kingdom.
Flynn, by the end of the film, has repented of his thieving ways and asked Rapunzel to marry him. He also gives his life for Rapunzel's freedom. Rapunzel, in turn, was willing to give her freedom for his life. "No greater love..."
We see Flynn go from a man who values the shallow, to a man who would give his life for the woman he loves- a decision, albeit, not made on The Foundation of God's Word, but the right decision, nonetheless.
I loved seeing Rapunzel doing all these homemaking tasks, and having a blast at them.
And we also get to enjoy a pleasant amount of good, clean humor. I am really enjoying the lack of crude jokes in the animations I've seen of late.
The Bad
Another film with magic in it. Drops from the sun and magic incantations to draw healing powers from Rapunzel's hair. And the sun emblem all over the city makes me think "sun-worship," even though we see nothing in that direction.
Rapunzel and mother Gothel could both use dresses that were a bit looser and a bit higher-necked up top. ("They're animation!" Right. So it shouldn't be that hard to animate a more modest top.)
Now for some less obvious issues.
The film creates a dangerous hypothetical situation that causes us to cheer for Rapunzel when she chooses to rebel against the woman who she believes to be her mother. Situational ethics, again. "Well, if she hadn't rebelled, since Gothel stayed ever-young because of Rapunzel's hair, Rapunzel would have been locked in the tower ad infinitum!" Yeah, see what I mean. Dangerous hypothetical. They're easy to create- Jack Bauer (of the popular TV show 24) must shoot his (innocent) boss or the terrorists will blow up 2 billion people. His boss is a jerk- OK. Go for it, Jack! Well, Jack, what if it was 2 people? What if it was a choice between your daughter or 25 people? If we don't ground our choices in God's Law-Word, we're left to being lost in the labyrinth of our own depraved minds.
No. Rapunzel shouldn't have disobeyed the woman she believed to be her mother.
No. Jack shouldn't kill his boss. I don't care how big the threat.
Obey God, and trust Him to deliver.
It is a wisdom issue, definitely, how far obedience is to be taken, and how late into the child-now-adult's life. But for Rapunzel to leave home to pursue her dream is wrong in multiple ways.
I've heard the use of the tiara analogized to Rapunzel's virginity. I think it's a stretch, though one that is visible if looked for. Mother Gothel says that the tiara is all that Flynn wants and when she gives it to him he will leave her. Take that at face value and it sure sounds like a sermon for chastity- which is disobeyed with happy consequences when Rapunzel "isn't afraid" to give the tiara to Flynn anymore later on, and he tells her to keep it. But in the context of the film, they didn't play that up very much.
"When will my life begin?" Miss Rapunzel, your life has begun already. I understand the desire for advancing. That's good. So is contentment. This line in the song stated her theme very effectively, but was rather a downer in the midst of her celebration of homemaking.
The Disney Dream Theme drives me up a wall. Do you have a dream? What's your dream? Follow your dream! Will it be as good as I dreamed? And then I've heard Christians talk about how wonderful of a theme it is. I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree- you'll have to help me see how this is a redemptive message.
What's my dream? (I prefer vision. More manly.) To build The Kingdom of God. To have a family. To compose awesome and excellent music that testifies to The Glory of God. Ultimately, to conform my vision to be more like God's Vision for me.
Are those good dreams? I think so. But dreaming isn't good for dreaming's sake. And if all we are is dreamers who hope that everything turns out as well as we dreamed, then we've missed the point of investing our lives in Something Eternal that isn't subject to the fluctuations of our emotions. "Living your dream" isn't the highest goal in life, but I fear that that's what Rapunzel seems to think.
This brings up two other points:
1. Flynn. And his vision, or lack thereof. He's a vain, happy-go-lucky rascal who commits grand thefts and leaves his thief comrades to be caught by the king's soldiers. And when he meets Rapunzel, she's the one with the vision. He's her helper who helps her achieve her vision. She's the proactive hero- he's the guy who's stuck with her. Now, we've already discussed how he repents at the end- which is good! He learns to value deeper things than his beautiful nose. Nevertheless, he's still another example of the "Cool Bad Guy Syndrome".
2. The pub full of ruffians that Rapunzel transforms into a group of loving, singing, joyous brotherhood-of-man types. 'Cuz they, too, have a dream. (And I gotta say, I loved all the stuff about concert piano-playing. Though Mozart lived in the 1700s, so that threw me for a second...) Well, I find this interesting modeling as well. We already know that mother Gothel says Rapunzel can't handle herself in the real world. And we also know (this is Disney, after all) that Rapunzel is perfectly capable of handling herself in the real world. Right?
Well, if the real world is that a restaurant full of low-lifes can be transformed into an ecumenical meeting hall for dreamers of all shapes and sizes by a girl singing- she sure can. But that's not actually the real world. Rapunzel wouldn't last long in the real world. Sure, it allows for some hilarious stuff. But your average 18-year-old girl who sets out to pursue her dream today may find herself in a lot more trouble than Rapunzel does. Criminals aren't really just loving people who haven't ever been able to express their dream.
The haircut at the end. It was a great twist in the story, but a horrible twist in the worldview, in the eyes of yours truly. Rapunzel now looks like any 2011 teenage girl who happens to be stuck in a dress. Why does it rub me so wrong? Did Flynn do the right thing? I think so. It just grates on me, because of our culture, I guess, that they gave her such a modern, egalitarian haircut in the end- after seeing her with yards and yards of gorgeous, feminine hair the whole film long. Modeling, again.
(Quick question with regards to story consistency- why hadn't the dead brown hair grown any since it was cut when she was a baby?)
And while we're talking modeling, I think probably my biggest issue with the film is that we have one young, handsome, fiendish guy and one beautiful, childish, naivë girl hanging out together day-in day-out in all kinds of secluded spots. Problem.
The Art
The Good
The story. Very well told. Very exciting, wide-ranging emotionally, fulfilling, classic Disney. The twist at the end was a great story point.
The animation. It was good. Maybe not great- I still like Pixar better, and Owls still takes the cake- but it was good. The hair looked beautiful.
Another Snyder rule- "A Limp and An Eyepatch". They gave the minor characters that would be tough to keep track of certain things that made them readily identifiable. Very smart. Be it a hook on the concert pianist or an eyepatch on one of the twins, I didn't struggle with remembering who was who.
The score. Mr. Menken did a great job with the mickey-mousing, and the score on the whole was enjoyable.
The Bad
Couple of things. First, this film broke one of Mr. Blake Snyder's Immutable Laws of Screenplay Physics- the Double Mumbo Jumbo Law. I can swallow one piece of magic per film. Sun-drop causing magical golden hair? Fine. I'll take it. Carry on.
But wait- this magic tear thing at the end? Where'd that come from? They broke the Double Mumbo Jumbo Law, and the result was a less satisfying climax as well as a scene of Velveeta.
It was a great twist that led to Flynn's death, but I think the story would have been better, albeit sadder, if he had stayed dead. Or something. Yeah, him staying dead would have gone over like a lead balloon for all the kids in the audience. Granted. But bringing him back from death by her tears was a stretch that was painful for this viewer.
(It is worth mentioning that the original story does involve Rapunzel healing her husband's eyes with her tears.)
The other thing that really bugged me was the use of non-fitting music. "When will my life begin," regardless the lyrics- why do we have a pop song in a fairy tale again? Why did they do the music like this? Knights (well, a thief, actually), castles, a beautiful maiden in distress, and electric guitar. Odd one out? Howzabout a drumset?
They did another montage later. And then there was the credits. "That was really super. WAIT! No, it wasn't..."
I don't like musicals, from a story perspective. It's odd. It's unrealistic. And it's telling, not showing. I love musicals from a musical perspective- when the music is good and fitting to the film. The pop songs in Tangled disturbed me "on a number of levels".
I don't like the title, either. I know there's a connection between "Tangled" and "Long Hair", but that appears to be where the connection stops. My little sister suggested "The Lost Princess", and I think that title does a much better job describing the film in a way that makes me want to see it.
So this film was OK. If you're watching it for fun, it's fun- plenty of laughs. Don't shut your mind off, though. There's more of the same tired old bad worldview, and there are also some good things we can pull from it. I wouldn't consider it anything amazing one way or t'other.
3/5
I've heard the use of the tiara analogized to Rapunzel's virginity. I think it's a stretch, though one that is visible if looked for. Mother Gothel says that the tiara is all that Flynn wants and when she gives it to him he will leave her. Take that at face value and it sure sounds like a sermon for chastity- which is disobeyed with happy consequences when Rapunzel "isn't afraid" to give the tiara to Flynn anymore later on, and he tells her to keep it. But in the context of the film, they didn't play that up very much.
"When will my life begin?" Miss Rapunzel, your life has begun already. I understand the desire for advancing. That's good. So is contentment. This line in the song stated her theme very effectively, but was rather a downer in the midst of her celebration of homemaking.
The Disney Dream Theme drives me up a wall. Do you have a dream? What's your dream? Follow your dream! Will it be as good as I dreamed? And then I've heard Christians talk about how wonderful of a theme it is. I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree- you'll have to help me see how this is a redemptive message.
What's my dream? (I prefer vision. More manly.) To build The Kingdom of God. To have a family. To compose awesome and excellent music that testifies to The Glory of God. Ultimately, to conform my vision to be more like God's Vision for me.
Are those good dreams? I think so. But dreaming isn't good for dreaming's sake. And if all we are is dreamers who hope that everything turns out as well as we dreamed, then we've missed the point of investing our lives in Something Eternal that isn't subject to the fluctuations of our emotions. "Living your dream" isn't the highest goal in life, but I fear that that's what Rapunzel seems to think.
This brings up two other points:
1. Flynn. And his vision, or lack thereof. He's a vain, happy-go-lucky rascal who commits grand thefts and leaves his thief comrades to be caught by the king's soldiers. And when he meets Rapunzel, she's the one with the vision. He's her helper who helps her achieve her vision. She's the proactive hero- he's the guy who's stuck with her. Now, we've already discussed how he repents at the end- which is good! He learns to value deeper things than his beautiful nose. Nevertheless, he's still another example of the "Cool Bad Guy Syndrome".
2. The pub full of ruffians that Rapunzel transforms into a group of loving, singing, joyous brotherhood-of-man types. 'Cuz they, too, have a dream. (And I gotta say, I loved all the stuff about concert piano-playing. Though Mozart lived in the 1700s, so that threw me for a second...) Well, I find this interesting modeling as well. We already know that mother Gothel says Rapunzel can't handle herself in the real world. And we also know (this is Disney, after all) that Rapunzel is perfectly capable of handling herself in the real world. Right?
Well, if the real world is that a restaurant full of low-lifes can be transformed into an ecumenical meeting hall for dreamers of all shapes and sizes by a girl singing- she sure can. But that's not actually the real world. Rapunzel wouldn't last long in the real world. Sure, it allows for some hilarious stuff. But your average 18-year-old girl who sets out to pursue her dream today may find herself in a lot more trouble than Rapunzel does. Criminals aren't really just loving people who haven't ever been able to express their dream.
The haircut at the end. It was a great twist in the story, but a horrible twist in the worldview, in the eyes of yours truly. Rapunzel now looks like any 2011 teenage girl who happens to be stuck in a dress. Why does it rub me so wrong? Did Flynn do the right thing? I think so. It just grates on me, because of our culture, I guess, that they gave her such a modern, egalitarian haircut in the end- after seeing her with yards and yards of gorgeous, feminine hair the whole film long. Modeling, again.
(Quick question with regards to story consistency- why hadn't the dead brown hair grown any since it was cut when she was a baby?)
And while we're talking modeling, I think probably my biggest issue with the film is that we have one young, handsome, fiendish guy and one beautiful, childish, naivë girl hanging out together day-in day-out in all kinds of secluded spots. Problem.
The Art
The Good
The story. Very well told. Very exciting, wide-ranging emotionally, fulfilling, classic Disney. The twist at the end was a great story point.
The animation. It was good. Maybe not great- I still like Pixar better, and Owls still takes the cake- but it was good. The hair looked beautiful.
Another Snyder rule- "A Limp and An Eyepatch". They gave the minor characters that would be tough to keep track of certain things that made them readily identifiable. Very smart. Be it a hook on the concert pianist or an eyepatch on one of the twins, I didn't struggle with remembering who was who.
The score. Mr. Menken did a great job with the mickey-mousing, and the score on the whole was enjoyable.
The Bad
Couple of things. First, this film broke one of Mr. Blake Snyder's Immutable Laws of Screenplay Physics- the Double Mumbo Jumbo Law. I can swallow one piece of magic per film. Sun-drop causing magical golden hair? Fine. I'll take it. Carry on.
But wait- this magic tear thing at the end? Where'd that come from? They broke the Double Mumbo Jumbo Law, and the result was a less satisfying climax as well as a scene of Velveeta.
It was a great twist that led to Flynn's death, but I think the story would have been better, albeit sadder, if he had stayed dead. Or something. Yeah, him staying dead would have gone over like a lead balloon for all the kids in the audience. Granted. But bringing him back from death by her tears was a stretch that was painful for this viewer.
(It is worth mentioning that the original story does involve Rapunzel healing her husband's eyes with her tears.)
The other thing that really bugged me was the use of non-fitting music. "When will my life begin," regardless the lyrics- why do we have a pop song in a fairy tale again? Why did they do the music like this? Knights (well, a thief, actually), castles, a beautiful maiden in distress, and electric guitar. Odd one out? Howzabout a drumset?
They did another montage later. And then there was the credits. "That was really super. WAIT! No, it wasn't..."
I don't like musicals, from a story perspective. It's odd. It's unrealistic. And it's telling, not showing. I love musicals from a musical perspective- when the music is good and fitting to the film. The pop songs in Tangled disturbed me "on a number of levels".
I don't like the title, either. I know there's a connection between "Tangled" and "Long Hair", but that appears to be where the connection stops. My little sister suggested "The Lost Princess", and I think that title does a much better job describing the film in a way that makes me want to see it.
So this film was OK. If you're watching it for fun, it's fun- plenty of laughs. Don't shut your mind off, though. There's more of the same tired old bad worldview, and there are also some good things we can pull from it. I wouldn't consider it anything amazing one way or t'other.
3/5
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)