Saturday, May 23, 2015
"ONCE UPON A TIME: MAKING EXCUSES"
For those of you who believe that Emma Swan did the right thing by killing Cruella de Vil in the “ONCE UPON A TIME”Season Four episode, (4.18) “Sympathy For the de Vil” . . . I could not disagree with you more.
Emma could have used another way to save her son, Henry Mills, from Cruella. She could have teleported him from Cruella’s grasp. She could have teleported Cruella’s gun. Someone on FANFORUM.COM had pointed out that Emma could have saved Henry . . . and not kill Cruella. After all, she managed to stop Zelena aka the Wicked Witch of the West from killing Henry in (3.19) “A Curious Thing”. Yet, she could not have done the same with Cruella in (4.18) “Sympathy For the de Vil”? What made Emma’s action even more problematic is that she did not even warn Henry that she was about to attack Cruella. She just did killed the latter . . . magically shoved her over a cliff. If Henry had not ducked, there is a good chance he would have been dead, as well.
I have written a good number of articles criticizing Emma and other members of the Charming family. And there is a reason why. Many fans like are ALWAYS making excuses for their more questionable actions. The only reason these same fans are now being critical about Snow and David’s actions toward Maleficent’s baby, revealed in (4.16) "Best Laid Plans", is they had lied to Emma about what they had done. They revealed that they were not as "noble" as Emma - and many fans - originally believed they were.
A lot of fans like to pretend that Emma and Snow did nothing wrong, when the latter tried to kill Mulan in (2.08)“Into the Deep”. So do show runners Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis. They have made sure that both Snow and Emma have never paid the consequences for their actions . . . or lack of action in that episode. Many fans have claimed that Snow only attacked Mulan during their fight, after the latter was prevented from stealing away with a magical compass that would have taken them from the Enchanted Forest and back to Storybrooke. What happened was the following . . . Snow and Mulan fought. Snow won and held down Mulan. Mulan told Snow and Emma that she took the locket to save Aurora. Snow lost her temper and decided to kill or maim Mulan anyway. Aurora stopped Snow. Emma did nothing but looked on. She never lifted a finger or raised her voice to stop Snow from a murder attempt.
Many fans still make countless excuses for Snow’s murder of Cora in (2.16) “The Miller’s Daughter”. In fact, they still react the same way as Emma did, when she tried to make excuses for Snow by using Cora’s murderous actions. Snow was not concerned about saving Storybrooke. She wanted revenge against Cora for the murder of her mother, Queen Eva. And she used a cruel way to get her revenge. That is why David was upset at what she had done. He had even offered to kill Cora himself . . . to save Snow’s moral compass and the town. Snow rejected his offer and proceeded to get her revenge anyway. And Emma could not handle the truth when Snow told her why she had killed Cora. These same fans still cannot handle the truth.
Many fans still make excuses for Emma’s possession of the yellow Volkswagen. Neal had first stolen the car. Then Emma tried to steal the car from him. Both ended up using the car together, when they became a couple. When I pointed out that Emma was still driving a stolen car in previous articles and forums, many fans either ignored the topic or responded with some drivel about Emma not being guilty of murder, or the fact that Neal had arranged the car’s registration to reflect her as the true owner. As if that was supposed to excuse Emma knowingly being in possession of a stolen car.
Many fans still make excuses about Emma’s decision to change the timeline and save “Maid Marian” in (3.22) “There’s No Place Like Home”. These same fans continue to claim that saving a life is more important than maintaining the storyline. No, it is not. Especially not for someone who had died in the past. I realize this is a harsh thing to say, but changing the timeline for any reason is a very . . . dangerous . . . thing to do. Both Hook and Rumpelstiltskin had warned Emma not to change the timeline for any reason. But she refused to listen. And what happened? As it turned out, Emma’s decision to change the timeline gave Zelena the opportunity to return to Storybrooke in Marian’s place. I am quite certain that Kitsis and Horowitz will never mention or criticize Emma’s bad decision in a future episode. If they do, I will be happily surprised.
What is it about these fans who seem incapable of dealing with Emma or the other Charmings actually being guilty of a crime or a serious mistake? Is it really that important that the Charming family be portrayed in some idealized manner? Do these same fans really need idealized fictional protagonists who are incapable of a bad deed or mistake in order to deal with this crazy old world of ours? Do they need to cling to some kind of illusion about humanity that only the world of fiction can maintain with any real thoroughness? What is it?
Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz used to be part of the writing staff for "LOST", a television show in which most or nearly all of the characters were guilty of serious mistakes or crimes. The cast of characters could have been easily nicknamed “Murder, Inc.”. Apparently, the show runners for "ONCE UPON A TIME" seem bent upon portraying nearly all of their major characters in a similar light . . . including "the Savior" herself. Is this so hard for many fans to accept? Or are they among those types who can only deal with characters with a one-dimensional moral compass? If the latter, I hope that none of them ever become writers.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Below is a gallery featuring photos from the 1936 classic movie called "SAN FRANCISCO". Directed by W.S. Van Dyke, it starred Clark Gable, Jeanette MacDonald and Spencer Tracy:
"SAN FRANCISCO" (1936) Photo Gallery
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
"THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL" (2014) Review
I have never been a major fan of Wes Anderson's films in the past. Well . . . I take that back. I have never been a fan of his films, with the exception of one - namely 2007's "THE DARJEELING LIMITED". Perhaps my inability to appreciate most of Anderson's films was due to my inability to understand his sense of humor . . . or cinematic style. Who knows? However, after viewing "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL", the number of Anderson films of which I became a fan, rose to two.
Written and directed by Anderson, "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL" is about the adventures of one Gustave H., a legendary concierge at a famous hotel from the fictional Republic of Zubrowka during the early 1930s; and his most trusted friend, a lobby boy named Zero Moustafa. Narrated from a much older Zero, the movie, which was inspired by the writings of Austrian author Stefan Zweig, begins in the present day in which a teenage girl stares at a monument inside a cemetery, who holds a memoir in her arms, written by a character known as "The Author". The book narrates a tale in which "the Author" as a younger man visited the Grand Budapest Hotel in 1968 Zubrowka. There, he met the hotel's elderly owner, Zero Moustafa, who eventually tells him how he took ownership of the hotel and why he is unwilling to close it down.
The story shifts to 1932, in which a much younger Zero was one of the hotel's lobby boys, freshly arrived in Zubrowka as a war refugee. Zero becomes acquainted with Monsieur Gustave H., who is a celebrated concierge known for sexually pleasing some of the hotel's wealthy guests - namely those who are elderly and romantically desperate. One of Gustave's guests is the very wealthy Madame Céline Villeneuve "Madame D" Desgoffe und Taxis. Although Zubrowka is on the verge of war, Gustave becomes more concerned with news that "Madame D" has suddenly died. He and Zero travels across the country to attend her wake and the reading of her will. During the latter, Gustave learns that "Madame D" has bequeathed to him a very valuable painting called "Boy with Apple". This enrages her family, all of whom hoped to inherit it. Not long after Gustave and Zero's return to the Grand Budapest Hotel, the former is arrested and imprisoned for the murder of the elderly woman, who had died of strychnine poisoning. Gustave and Zero team up to help the former escape from prison and learn who had framed him for murder.
"THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL" not only proved to be very popular with critics, the film also earned four Golden Globe nominations and won one award - Best Film: Musical or Comedy. It also earned nine Academy Awards and won four. Not bad for a comedy about a mid-European concierge in the early 1930s. Did the movie deserved its accolades? In spades. It is the only other Wes Anderson movie I have ever developed a real love for. In fact, I think I enjoyed it even more than"THE DARJEELING LIMITED". When I first heard about the movie, I did not want to see it. I did not even want to give it a chance. Thank God I did. The movie not only proved to be my favorite Anderson film, it also became one of my favorite 2014 flicks.
Is "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL" perfect? For a while, I found myself hard pressed to think of anything about this movie that may have rubbed me the wrong way. I realized there was one thing with which I had a problem - namely the way this movie began. Was it really necessary to star the movie with a young girl staring at a statue of "the Author", while holding his book? Was it really necessary to have "the Older Author" begin the movie's narration, before he is replaced by his younger self and the older Zero Moustafa? I realized what Anderson was trying to say. He wanted to convey to movie audiences that M. Gustave and Zero's story will continue on through the Author's book and they will never be forgotten. But I cannot help but wonder if Anderson could have conveyed his message without this gimmicky prologue.
"THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL" may not be perfect. But I would certainly never describe it as a mediocre or even moderately good film. This movie deserved the Academy Award nominations and wins it earned . . . and many more. It was such a joy to watch it that not even its angst-filled moments could dampen my feelings. Anderson did a superb job of conveying his usual mixture of high comedy, pathos and quixotic touches in this film. Now, one might point out this is the director's usual style, which makes it nothing new. I would agree, except . . . I believe that Anderson's usual style perfectly blended with the movie's 1930s Central European setting. For me, watching "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL"seemed like watching an Ernst Lubitsch movie . . . only with profanity and a bit of sexual situations and nudity.
I have only watched a handful of Lubitsch's movies and cannot recall any real violence or political situations featured in any of his plots. Wait . . . I take that back. His 1942 movie, "TO BE OR NOT TO BE" featured strong hints of violence, war and a touch of infidelity. However, I believe Anderson went a little further in his own depictions of war, violence and sex. But this did not harm the movie one bit. After all, "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL" was released in the early 21st century. Sex and violence is nothing new in today's films . . . even in highly acclaimed ones. Despite the presence of both in the film, Anderson still managed to infuse a great deal of wit and style into his plot. This was especially apparent in two sequences - Zero's initial description of M. Gustave and the Grand Budapest Hotel; and that marvelous sequence in which a fraternal order of Europe's hotel concierges known as the Society of the Crossed Keys helped Gustave and Zero evade the police and find the one person who can who can clear Gustave's name and help him retrieve his legacy from "Madame D". I especially enjoyed the last sequence. In my eyes, Lubitsch could not have done it any better.
There were other aspects of "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL" that enhanced its setting. First of all, I have to give kudos to Adam Stockhausen and Anna Pinnock for their work on the movie. Stockhausen, who also served as the production designer for the Oscar winning film, "12 YEARS A SLAVE", did a superb job of reflecting the movie's two major time periods - Central Europe in the early 1930s and the late 1960s. Pinnock served as the film's set decorator. Both Stockhausen and Pinnock shared the Academy Award for Best Production Design. Milena Canonero won an Oscar for the film's costume designs. I have to admit that she deserved. I feel she deserved it, because she did an excellent job of creating costumes not only for the characters, but also their class positions and the movie's settings. She did not simply resort to re-creating the fashion glamour of the 1930s for the sake of eye candy. Robert Yeoman's photography for the movie really impressed me. I found it sharp and very atmospheric for the movie's setting. I can see why he managed to earn an Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography.
I was shocked when I learned that Ralph Fiennes failed to get an Academy Award nomination for his performance as M. Gustave. What on earth was the Academy thinking? I can think of at least two actor who were nominated for Best Actor for 2014, who could have been passed over. Gustave is Fiennes' masterpiece, as far as I am concerned. I never realized he had such a spot-on talent for comedy. And although his Gustave is one of the funniest characters I have seen in recent years, I was also impressed by the touch of pathos he added to the role. Another actor, who I also believe deserved an Oscar nomination was Tony Revolori. Where on earth did Anderson find this kid? Oh yes . . . Southern California. Well . . . Revolori was also superb as the young Zero, who not only proved to be a very devoted employee and friend to M. Gustave, but also a very pragmatic young man. Like Fiennes, Revolori had both an excellent touch for both comedy and pathos. Also, both he and Fiennes proved to have great screen chemistry.
Revolori also shared a solid screen chemistry with actress Saoirse Ronan, who portrayed Zero's lady love, pastry chef Agatha. Ronan's charming performance made it perfectly clear why Zero and even M. Gustave found Agatha's sharp-tongue pragmatism very alluring. Another charming performance came from Tilda Swinton, who portrayed one of Gustave's elderly lovers. It seemed a shamed that Swinton's appearance was short-lived. I found her portrayal of the wealthy, yet insecure and desperate Madame Céline Villeneuve Desgoffe und Taxis rather interesting. Adrien Brody gave an interesting performance as Dmitri Desgoffe und Taxis, Madame Villeneuve's son. I have never seen Brody portray a villain before. But I must say that I was impressed by the way he effectively portrayed Dmitri as a privileged thug. Willem Dafoe was equally interesting as Dmitri's cold-blooded assassin, J.G. Jopling. And Edward Norton struck me as both funny and scary as The movie also featured first-rate performances from Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Mathieu Amalric, Jason Schwartzman, Léa Seydoux, Owen Wilson, Fisher Stevens, Bob Balaban and especially Bill Murray as Monsieur Ivan, Gustave's main contact with the Society of the Crossed Keys. The movie had three narrators - Tom Wilkinson as the Older Author, Jude Law as the Younger Author and F. Murray Abraham as the Older Zero. All three did great jobs, but I noticed that Wilkinson's time as narrator was very short-lived.
What else can I say about "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL"? It is one of the few movies in which its setting truly blended with Wes Anderson's off-kilter humorous style. The movie not only benefited from great artistry from the crew and superb performances from a cast led by Ralph Fiennes and Tony Revolori, but also from the creative pen and great direction from Wes Anderson. Now, I am inspired to try my luck with some of his other films again.