Catching up on media over the holidays (Part 2)

So I'm finally catching up on the new movies, TV, etc.  My quick-hit thoughts (well, at least that was what was intended, and as I tend to do I ended up writing more than planned) on three movies seen this week:

The Princess and the Frog
It's great to see a solid 2-D hand-drawn animated feature from Disney after several flops and the studio's attempt at one point to abandon that style and rely solely on 3-D computer animation for its animated films.  John Lasseter is a visionary filmmaker in the strongest sense of the word (as evidenced by Toy Story, Cars, etc.) but may be even smarter as an executive, helping people to flourish around him, and was wise to reinvigorate Disney's hand animation unit when Pixar was bought by Disney and he was given creative reign over Disney's entire animation business.  This is the studio that brought us everything from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Fantasia in their golden age to The Lion King, Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid in their 80s/90s renaissance - which is why it's so exciting to see another good, solid entry in their catalog.

The Princess and the Frog (hereafter PATF) is not the best Disney animated film to date, but it's a well-done, engaging story that I expect kids and adults to be enjoying for years to come.  From a sociocultural standpoint, this is a milestone in that it gives the hugely popular "Disney princesses" line a long-overdue African-American character in the film's heroine Tiana; the film mostly sidesteps the larger issue of what it means to be a poor black girl growing up in an economically and racially segregated city, and what possibilities this affords (or, more importantly, does not afford), but this is perhaps for the best, and I must admit (minor spoiler alert) that I liked that the film gave Tiana's rich white friend Charlotte a chance to show there was more to her than we had previously suspected at the end - though I couldn't help but wonder why Tiana's rich white friend Big Daddy could not have simply helped her out financially earlier on, since he clearly had more money than he knew what to do with and was aware Tiana could have used it to start her restaurant.  But I digress...

The film's plot is predictable - in a good way, so perhaps "comfortable" would be a better word - and it's not really any surprise how things end up in a big-picture sort of way.  Its details, though, are charming, from the amusing secondary characters who assist our heroes (what would a Disney be without memorable sidekicks?) to the very specific-feeling bayou, New Orleans streets, plantation house, and other settings.  PATF is a feast for the eyes, and has enough genuine laughs and emotion to keep you engaged the whole way through.  At ~1:40 it's just the right length, leaving you wanting just a bit more but still feeling successfully concluded.

When compared to the best of Disney's animated films, I have to admit that the songs are not up to snuff - upon leaving the theater, I couldn't remember a single memorable tune or lyric that I would want to hear again.  It's not that the songs are "bad," just that they don't have the classic feel of something like "Under the Sea" or "Beauty and the Beast".  But this is a minor quibble in a strong film, and I enjoyed the songs in the moment even if I didn't come out humming them.

One note of caution:  not sure how this film got a "G" rating, though given how arbitrary the MPAA's ratings are and the fact that they generally assume any Disney animated movie is an automatic G, perhaps it's not surprising.  I thought a couple of the scenes with the "Shadowman," particularly when he's summoning the spirits to his assistance (and later when - spoiler alert - he's getting dragged back to the nether realms with them) could be pretty intense for little kids.  Adults will appreciate the strong visual style with which these are done, however.

Sherlock Holmes
Full disclosure:  I'm a longtime fan of the Sherlock Holmes character, and have read all the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories as well as a number of Holmes stories (both those true to the original style and those that spin Holmes in a new direction) by later authors.  I even watch House religiously.  So I was understandably worried when I heard Guy Ritchie had been entrusted with such a classic and close-to-my-heart character.  The good news?  It turns out my fears were only partially justified.  True, the action scenes are put together with Ritchie's normal cut-too-fast-and-shot-too-close-to-make-sense-of style (he's like a low-rent Michael Bay, except not as good), and there's not much in the way of classic Holmesian deduction.  And I'm not sure that the portrayals of Holmes and Watson here have much in common with the way Doyle envisioned them.

But that doesn't mean the movie's a failure.  In fact, I quite enjoyed it as a "popcorn movie"; Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are a lot of fun to watch.  It's just that it's not a "Sherlocks Holmes movie."  The joy of the Holmes character has always been (at least to me) his ability to take tiny little things and deduce something larger from them.  And we do get a bit of that in this film, but not enough to make it what the movie's really about.  Instead, we get a bickering old married couple in Holmes/Watson (whose friendship today would certainly fall under the label "bromance"), a lot of fist-fighting and shooting, and a focus on the supernatural that's antithetical (for most of the movie at least) to Holmes' classic rationality.

On its own terms, it works.  And I have to give credit where credit is due:  this movie does a nice job with Watson.  Too many of the older cinematic/TV incarnations of Watson paint him as a doddering fool who's only there to fulfill the plot need of Holmes having someone to whom he can explain his deductions at the end.  This never rang true to me:  Doyle makes it clear that Holmes and Watson have a real friendship, and I just don't buy that someone as intelligent as Holmes would tolerate spending his time with an idiot.  So what I appreciated here is that Watson is made as intelligent and strong a force as Holmes.  True, he may not have the same level of attention to detail or deductive reasoning as his more famous companion, but it's clear that he and Holmes feed off each other, and while Watson may get a thrill from accompanying his friend and watching him solve cases, Holmes cannot function without his friend as a sounding board and companion:  he needs someone who not only understands his need for intellectual stimulation and hence puts up with his eccentricities, but also can hold his own in a conversation and is not afraid to call Holmes on his more ridiculous behaviors.  So kudos on this relationship to the actors, screenwriters, and director.


Ironically, it is a structural element of the film that tries to mimic the structure of Doyle's original stories which is one of its biggest failings.  In the classic short stories, Holmes tends to withhold his explanations until the end, when he reveals to Watson and/or his client and/or the police how he solved the case.  No problem in a short story, where there is a single key mystery and usually one key observation Holmes made that showed him the answer.  The problem with the film is that it raises a LOT of mysteries but (like the short stories) doesn't let Holmes explain anything until the end, when he's forced to give a five-minute monologue laying out all his deductions and explanations in a row, dragging what should have been the climax of the movie to a screeching halt.  Far better would have been for him to reveal some of his reasoning throughout, and save the final explanation that ties it all together until the denouement, when it could have carried a lot more punch in a much shorter timeframe.

Go see the movie, you'll have fun, but don't expect something as memorable as the original character.  My prediction?  This film will make its money, and probably spark a franchise, but will be one of those that is quickly forgotten once it's over.  It'll be one of those you watch on late-night cable TV years down the road, but not something you'd actively seek out.  Given my feelings about what they've done with the Holmes/Watson relationship, though, I must admit I'll be keeping my eyes out for a sequel, hoping they can build on that strength but have a more truly Holmesian mystery for those two to tackle.

p.s. - keep your ears peeled for some interesting surround usage in the scene where Holmes and Watson investigate the factory on the river.... nicely used here, and I just wish they would have been as thoughtful about the surround the rest of the movie.

Up in the Air
Easily the best movie I've seen this holiday season thus far.  The plot is predictable in both its large-scale movements and the in details of its execution, and there were very few "twists" you didn't see coming a mile away, including the ending.  But for all that, it's a treat and hard to resist.  The actors are superb, and it's a joy just to see them chew on these complex characters.  Vera Farmiga is amazing (and gorgeous - why isn't she in more things?) and Anna Kendrick is outstanding in a role very different (but just as well played) as her Alice in the Twilight movies.  But it's George Clooney's movie to carry, and he does it.  I always forget how good Clooney can be until I see him flexing his muscles in a role like this.  Just the range of smiles he uses throughout - truly happy, pretending to be happy, not happy, pretending not to be happy, etc. - and the amount conveyed through them is unbelievable.

The only one more impressive is Jason Reitman:  in only his third feature, he's as confident a director as it seems there is working today - and it's a well-earned confidence.  Often he's willing to forgo dialogue and let the visuals tell the story, and they do (check out the wedding sequence, which is extraordinary for what it conveys and how it does so, and feels effortless despite the work that has to go into staging any such complex sequence).  But he's also not afraid to let the characters talk, and their dialogue (co-written by Reitman and Sheldon Turner from the novel by Walter Kim) sparkles.  It's natural and witty, and feels like exactly what these characters would say in these situations.

There's so much one could say about this movie - it's a slice of life, a relationship movie, a workplace comedy, and an insightful social commentary about modern life and work - and yet at the same time it's hard to say a whole lot about it since the joy of this movie is the little things:  the way characters share moments, the editing rhythms, the sense of truth to it.  So I'll leave it at this:  this is a little gem of a movie, without the flash of so many other films this year but with far more emotional and intellectual engagement.

Between this and Precious, there are two movies out right now that are not getting the press and media attention of their bigger-budget brethren but deserve to be seen.  Whether naively or optimistically, I'm a believer that movie audiences get what they deserve:  if we go out and see terrible movies, the studios will continue to put out more of the same.  If, on the other hand, movies like Up in the Air and Precious show that they not only can garner critical raves but also can attract audiences and make money, more character-driven pictures like these will get made.  Go out and see them, and you'll be glad you did.