Dear mother of god…it has been nearly two years since I last posted anything. I’ve missed a crap ton of good trailers. I mean, there were, like, two Disney movies since I last posted…and Tangled had SUCH an amazing teaser trailer. I mean, still, whenever I hear “Trouble” by Pink, I can’t help but think of that awesome trailer!
Too bad you missed it.
And what about The A-Team, or Kick Ass, or Suckerpunch?! You missed so much because of me. I guess that’s what you that’s what you get for depending on me for your one source of trailer info.
All I can say is sorry for the long delay and it’s better I come back later rather than never, right? What? Okay, you’re just bitter. Why don’t I come back and talk to you when you are more reasonable?
[imdb tt0844708] So I’ve been avoiding having to do a review on this trailer. There are just too many emotions I have about this film. Three years ago, when I first moved out here to L.A., fresh out of college, I, of course, was unemployed. I was also bored out of my gourd. During that time, I became frustrated at the prospect of having to choose from my collection of 150 movies I’d already seen, and set about raiding my roommates’ libraries. Jason and I are constantly bickering about films, so, almost out of spite, I bypassed his collection, and instead checked out Carrie’s.
Carrie is a horror film addict. Her walls are covered in horror film posters, and she has almost every slasher film you can think of. Her favorite director is Wes Craven (she especially loves the Scream series), and tucked in with all her DVDs I found The Last House on the Left. “Hmmm,” I thought, “looks interesting.” It looked like a film that belonged in my mother’s cult classics book, which, when I was younger, I would surreptitiously read about The Legend of Billy Jack, Pink Flamingoes, Harold and Maude, and Behind the Green Door, as though it were forbidden knowledge…and as though my mother would even care I was sneaking a read.
So, I settled myself in front of the tv, to watch the film while I mated socks and folded laundry. It isn’t really a sock mating movie. It was like a train wreck; I was transfixed. It was probably the most gruesome film I’d ever seen. When Carrie came home that night, I mentioned it to her, and even she said that she had only seen it once, and once was enough for her.
It’s not as though I shy away from films with gritty subject matter. I don’t devote all of my hours of film watching to Disney Princesses and dog movies. I like a film that can turn my stomach and still make me think. Hard Candy, The Hole, and Heavenly Creatures still resonate with me (all H movies…interesting). There is something about certain films that hit you in just the right way that they embed themselves into your subconscious.
Last House on the Left certainly did that, and that is why I am so disgusted by the idea of the remake. It would be like remaking Casablanca or Citizen Kane. The Last House on the Left was Wes Craven pushing the boundaries of the horror film. He literally dissected what was on screen in order to show as many of the guts of realism as he could, without being completely censored and cut off. There is a nausea inducing element to the film where the audience empathizes with the characters to the extent that they imagine what it would be like to be them. Craven shows the baseness of human nature that audience members can’t see from the news or reading the papers. I applaud him for that…but I cannot condone this repackaging and franchising of the film. The first thing I think when I see the trailer is they are just in it for the money.
Yes yes, aren’t they all, you might say, but young Wes Craven wasn’t? He set out to evolve a genre, and he did just that. But now, instead of putting energy into trying to find something NEW, he just pulls out the tattered old script and says, “Here!” Wipes his hands together, “I’m done for the day.”
Shenanigans, I say.
Well, as for the trailer, it shows everything. There is nothing left to the imagination. We know what happens to the girls, we know the parents find out, and we know they take revenge. There is no reason to see the movie except to maybe compare it with the original. It’s appalling. The only thing that I’ve heard people are surprised about is the rape scene, which, if they knew anything about the original film, they should have expected. Furthermore, it annoys me that people would be so gung-ho to see this film when the trailer is riddled with violence, and then they’re offended at the rape scene. Why is society so ho-hum about murder and bloodshed, but rape is a no-man’s-land?? Do they not understand that it is all violence? Do they feel guilty about watching a rape but not about watching a paralyzed man with his head in a microwave? Does nobody see the imbalance there? Yes, rape scenes are uncomfortable, but they are no more or less “artistic” than the dozens of throat slashings, point blank head shots, and eye gouges. If you are going to see this movie to get that thrill that comes with seeing so much violence, I think you deserve that entire uncomfortable experience.
On the other hand, I love the last half of the trailer, with the horrific violence, the images of the parents avenging their baby girl, with the Taken by Trees cover of Sweet Child of Mine overlayed. The sweet slow pace of the song gives the viewer the sense that the parents themselves are immune to the brutality they are inflicting on these strangers, thinking only of their sweet child, dying on the kitchen table. Despite the fact that the author has probably shown us all of the highlights of the film (at least the ones they’re allowed to show on tv), the song choice intermingled with the content makes me want to give the film a shot. Thus, I’ll probably rent it on DVD.
That is why I review film trailers, because whatever audience the film ends up attracting is usually dependent on the quality of the trailer.
[imdb princess and the frog] Okay…I’ve been excited about this film since it was first announced…what, two years ago? For one, The Frog Prince story is one of my favorite fairy tales. For two, I lived in New Orleans for a few years during my impressionable years, and I still have very fond memories of the French Quarter, the mardi gras float museum, and king cakes with little plastic babies sawed in half. Okay, they aren’t perfect memories…but they’re mine, okay?
Anyhoo…this is also Disney return to hand drawn animation! Not that there’s anything wrong with CG, but there is nothing prettier than hand drawn cells, in my opinion. Lastly, it’s about damn time there was an Black Princess. Damn straight. The closest we have had up until now was Nala from Africa who was a freakin’ lion. Princess Tiana has had an arduous journey to get to this point…she’s had like three different names, two different occupations, lots of concept art…but here she is now, in all her sassy splendor. I would mention the stereotype about the sassy black woman…but most Disney princesses are sassy in SOME way. Belle is my favorite, and she tamed a beast, so I think we can forgive Tiana that personality trait.
Disney is a little shaky when it comes to being politically correct. Most cartoons are. Children’s (adults’ as well) brains work on a level where it is much easier to marginalize certain traits. We see Speedy Gonzales and Slow-poke Rodriguez…and they are very stereotypical characters…animators took certain traits that are recognized in large groups of Mexican people (as seen through our white washed perspectives) and marginalized them, and packaged them into easily recognizeable characters. For those of us that are not familiar with different cultures…we can see Speedy and say “Mexican.” Then when we watch, say, The Three Cabelleros, we look at a character and say “Mexican.” That is where cliche and stereotypes come from. As long as it’s not insulting, it’s usually for comedic sake and it works well with children’s brains…it’s not necessarily right, but it isn’t going to stop.
That being said, I am slightly concerned about the stereotypes guaranteed to crop up in the Princess and the Frog. Already, just in the teaser, there is a cajun firefly with bad grammar and teeth missing. Most likely, if the frog does turn into a prince, he will probably also be African-American…because god forbid there be racial mixing in a children’s movie. I just wonder where the line is between appeasing the masses and pushing the envelope. This will probably be a fun sweet movie with beautiful art and amazing voice acting…but how will it differ from other Disney features? Where is the evolution? Where is the innovation Disney prides itself on?
Don’t get me wrong, I really want to see this film. I think it’s kind of lame that Disney bent to criticism about starting Tiana off as a chamber maid. All of the Disney princesses were chamber maids of some sort. Cinderella, obviously, Snow White cleaned up after dwarves, Aurora cleaned her little hovel and gathered berries, Belle cleaned up after her dotty father and then the beast. I also think it’s lame, though, that these heroines can only better their situations by getting married. How archaic is that? Tiana not being a maid because she’s black is stupid because you are then saying there is something wrong with being a maid. I was a maid; I didn’t like it, but I don’t think less of other maids. However, the fact that the story is about a Princess makes her being a maid a little out of place. Ignore, of course, the fact that it takes place in Louisiana, where there are no princesses. All I’m saying is that there are other things wrong with this film, not just the maid issue.
That also being said, Tiana is adorable and I wouldn’t kiss a frog either…even if he promised to turn into a hunk straight out of an Ambercrombie ad.
