Fantastic Magic

I recently saw “Fantastic Breasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald”, the sequel to the earlier Harry Potter prequel movie, “Fantastic Breasts and Where to Find Them”.

I actually read the original seven Harry Potter books and did a blog about them in 2007, around the time of Order of the Phoenix (#5) and before Half Blood Prince (#6) and the pair of “Deathly Hallows” films, which cover book #7 but serve as movies 7 and 8.   I haven’t read anything after Deathly Hallows.

I was pleasantly surprised by “FB” and also liked “Grindelwald”.  Both are prequels and neither feature Harry Potter himself.  Younger Dumbledore makes his appearance in “Grindelwald”, played by one of my favorite actors, Jude Law.  Johnny Deep plays Grindelwald himself.  Warning, Dumbledore describes his relationship with Grindelwald as “closer than brothers”, meaning, “they’re gay, but don’t worry, we won’t see them kissing.”  [“Not that there’s anything wrong with it.”]

Both focus on Newt Scamander, played by Eddie Redmayne, and here’s why I like it: almost all of the characters are adults AND the movie takes place in New York City.  FINALLY we have some acknowledgement that the United States exist.  As for adults, I suppose had I been a kid when the Potter books came out I’d have liked them more.  But no, I’m an adult, and to me these are kid’s stories and movies.  So pushing the focus on adult characters really pushes it more into my preference range.

The third thing is PARIS.   “Grindelwald” starts off in NYC again – 1927, so even the Chrysler Building isn’t around yet – but gives us some London (ZZZ) but lots of Paris.   And this is a Paris rich in Art Nouveau.  I’ve gone off about Paris umpteen times, mainly because I used to live there.   The Paris angle I DON’T LIKE is this 1920s “American in Paris” crap with Hemingway, Stein, and all the pretentious expatriate writers hanging out there after World War I.   And “Midnight in Paris” with Owen Wilson was all about that – except when his female friend Adriana (Marion Cotillard) dragged him to 1890s Paris.  Anyhow.  Fortunately the movie makers give us more Art Nouveau than Art Deco and spared us Hemingway and his friends.   Thank you!

Part of the fun is giving us young Dumbledore (Law) and many of the writers of the Hogwarts textbooks as actual characters in their youth.  While I can’t say I have the patience to re-read the original 7 books to catch up, many of the names sound vaguely familiar. 

Note: there will be a third film released in 2020, for a total of five films.  I have to wonder where the next three will take place, because we’ve hit NYC (Fantastic Breasts) and Paris (Grindelwald).   May I suggest Rio de Janeiro?  And what about magic in communist countries?  Dare we see what Moscow looked like in 1928, with Stalin and Trotsky still battling it out for control of the Soviet Union?  What does the MagiCheka look like? 

Better yet, if the series continues into the 1930s, in particular past January 30, 1933, perhaps Berlin could be a setting.  Because we all know that the Nazis’ fascination with the occult is a topic which is long overdue for a movie, right?

Stay tuned.

John Carter and the Lone Ranger

Recently I watched the more recent “Lone Ranger” film with Johnny Depp as Tonto and Armie Hammer as the title character.   It’s another CGI orgy with Depp essentially turning Jack Sparrow into an American Indian.  Enjoyable…to an extent.

Ages back I caught “John Carter” in the movie theater and then watched it on Blu-Ray.  Like “Lone Ranger” it was heavy on CGI, but had a fairly decent story and no awkward Depps lightening the mood.  Taylor Kitsch played the title character, Lynn Collins played his love interest Dejah Thoris [they played together in an earlier X-Men film], and Mark Strong – who always seems like Steve Carell’s bad-ass evil older brother – as the quasi villain. 

Both were financial failures as movies.  “John Carter” (2012) totaled out at $350 million production and marketing, yet only grossed $284 million worldwide.  “Lone Ranger” (2013) combined production and marketing was $375 million yet only grossed $260 million worldwide. 

Another big similarity is both had archaic source material.  “John Carter” was based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter trilogy from 1913.  ERB, not to be confused with Naked Lunch writer William S. Burroughs, is much more famous for Tarzan, which remains a popular franchise.  His John Carter character is mainly known among sci-fi fans, as Carter is arguably the template for Conan and all other swords & sorcery heroes we’ve had since.  Robert Heinlein was a huge fan of ERB and even wrote a book, Number of the Beast, in tribute to ERB.  James Cameron also cites John Carter as an influence for his big film Avatar.  But since 1913, there had been only one film adaptation, in 2009, which was not great:  it was direct-to-DVD and pretty much tanked.  In any case, I reviewed both the source material and the 2009 film in my prior blog, dated 4/30/10.

The Lone Ranger was significantly more successful prior to the 2013 film.  The 1933-54 radio show was very popular, followed by the similarly popular 1949-57 TV show.  Although many actors have portrayed the Lone Ranger, Clayton Moore is most popularly associated with the role.  The theme song, better known as the William Tell Overture, is well known, as is the Ranger’s famous catchphrase, “Hi Ho Silver” (which even figures in some Frank Zappa shows). 

Ok.  But look at the films:  110 octane CGI orgies of 1080p eye candy.   In Dejah Thoris’ case, serious eye candy.  Most of the people know who of John Carter or the Lone Ranger are old folks who don’t care much for that type of film.  You won’t get that demographic into the theaters to see these films, or even to watch them on DVD at home.  “Matlock is on!’ 

Clearly Granpa wasn’t the desired demographic.  What about his XBOX/PS4 playing grandkid?  Yeah, that’s the ticket.  He’s the one you thought would shell out $15 at the megaplex to see them in 3D IMAX.  But with no familiarity with the source material – and no reason to care – he stayed at home playing XBOX or PS4.  So the movies tanked.

The studios must have thought:  hey, this is easy.  We have ready-made stories here!  John Carter and Lone Ranger were written ages ago.  We just need to tweak a screenplay a little and we’re home free!  No original thinking necessary!  It’s like printing money!  WRONG. 

The sad part is, neither film actually sucks.  Of the two, “Lone Ranger” is less reverential.   We get Reid’s backstory – a naïve prosecutor who doesn’t believe in guns – but the film is told from Tonto’s point of view, and Depp can’t resist giving him, as noted above, the full Jack Sparrow treatment.  “Carter” was more straightforward.  It’s vast, epic, and again, did I mention Dejah Thoris?  Yeah.  For my sci-fi readers out there, by all means check out the original source material.  

Little Barber Shop of Horrors

Recently I checked out not one, but two gruesome but dramatic movies in a slightly cavalier vein.  They have some familiar elements in common:  poking light at unusual murders, even musically.

 Little Shop of Horrors.  The first incarnation I witnessed was the 1960 black & white movie by Roger Corman.  The most famous actor in here was Jack Nicholson, playing the masochistic dental patient, Wilbur Force.

            A modest flower shop, hard on luck and deficient in business, experiences a dramatic turn for the better – at least in income – when its meek and lowly assistant, Seymour, puts his man-eating plant, Audrey II, on display in the window.  The plant feeds on blood and meat, and gradually grows larger: it demands to be fed.  After initially feeding the plant his own blood, Seymour eventually winds up feeding people to the plant, who he has accidentally killed, including a sadistic dentist.  Its appetite only whetted, not sated, the plant compels Seymour to do its bidding.  He begins actually killing people to feed the plant, before finally being eaten in turn himself.  The plant, before dying, displays buds with the faces of its victims.  Gruesome indeed.

            Much later, in 1982, the story resurfaced as a musical stage show, followed by a musical movie version in 1986, which appears to be the “standard” variant most of us know of today.  Rick Moranis plays Seymour; Steve Martin plays the dentist; and Bill Murray takes Nicholson’s role as the dental patient.  Much of the plot was changed around, including the ending:  Seymour manages to defeat Audrey II and survives to marry Audrey.  Of course, the major change is the addition of various musical numbers.  Flowers, plants, love, life, and death are all the ideas which swirl around in music and song in this cynical but entertaining story.

 Sweeney Todd.  The version I’m referring to here is the recent Tim Burton film with Johnny Depp in the title role (“Edward Razorhands”?), Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Lovett, and Alan Rickman as Judge Turpin.  The story has been around since the early 19^th century, immensely popular among jaded London audiences hungry for lurid tales of crime and debauchery in their midst.  Yet again, Burton – whom I might describe as the Syd Barrett of contemporary film-making – provides a fantastic, whimsical, yet comically dark and cynical world and story.  He manages to make late 19^th century London look just as strange and alien as Wonka’s Chocolate Factory or Alice’s Wonderland.  It’s his style, whether you like it or not.

            Todd is a barber in late 19^th century London, with a beautiful wife and pretty daughter.  A nasty, corrupt judge (Turpin), who wants Todd’s wife for himself, has Todd unjustly convicted of a bogus offense and sent off for 15 years (the appellate system seems to be flawed).  His wife refused to marry the judge and took poison – but Mrs. Lovett is vague about her true fate.  His daughter (Johanna) has been adopted by Turpin, who then sets about to marry her.  A young androgynous sailor, Anthony, wins the heart of Johanna. 

            Todd returns from exile and finds a pastry shop on Fleet Street, run by a malicious widow, Mrs. Lovett.  Up until now, her pies haven’t been selling too well.  Moreover, she’s very lonely and has eyes for Todd.  She tells him what happened since he left, though in a somewhat misleading fashion.  Todd sets up his barber operation upstairs, rigging the barber chair to combine with a trap door leading to the basement of the pastry shop.  Luring unwitting customers to their doom (“the closest shave they’ll ever know”), Todd slits their throats with his silver razors and dispatches them into the cellar, where Mrs. Lovett feeds the corpses into a huge meat grinder to make filling for her meat pies.  The recipe is a winner; no one realizes the true ingredients of the pies.  His first victim was a competing barber, Pirelli (yet another Boratesque role from Sascha Baron Cohen), and despite a false start at defeating the judge, Todd does manage to finally overcome his nemesis.  In this film version, at least, several other deaths occur which twist the plot substantially into grave tragedy.  But still very worthwhile.  Did I mention – it’s a musical…and Depp, Carter, and Rickman all sing in their own voices!  Remarkable.

            Extra features to the DVD include an intriguing documentary on the character:  a semi-mythical figure who appears to be fictional after all.  Of course, leave it to Burton & Depp to bring the character to life extravagantly.  Be afraid, but also be very entertained.

Alice in Wonderland

Clearly this has been around for awhile, and turned into numerous movies, but in my view only 4 “versions” merit serious attention (and that doesn’t include several erotic versions which buzz around my subconscious like annoying bees). 

 Original Book, by Lewis Carroll.  This is actually two books, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, and (written much later) Alice Through the Looking Glass.  I read an annotated version of both, by Martin Gardner, which included the original illustrations by John Tenniel.  What we think of as “Alice in Wonderland”, in terms of story and plot, is the first one.  TTLG features an Alice six months older who ventures through a mirror and takes various steps, analogous to chessboard moves, and winds up as a Queen – along with the White and Red Queens – after reaching the “8^th row”.  Most Alice movies and stories, most notably the 1951 Disney version (mentioned below) seem to use Wonderland as a basis and inject some elements, but not the plot or story, of TTLG; I haven’t seen TTLG itself adapted as a complete movie in its own right.  The TTLG elements which wound up elsewhere are the White Queen (in the Burton/Depp movie), the White Knight (played by Matt Frewer)(in the Alice! Miniseries), and the talking flower garden & Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum in their storytelling mode (1951 Disney film).  Note that in TTLG the White Queen and Red Queens are merely chess counterparts and get along fine with each other – and with Alice, who by the time she meets them together at the same time (she had met each of them separately earlier in the story) is a Queen herself.  The Bandersnatch and Jabberwocky are mentioned in poems but not met in person. 

            In fact, much of both stories is poetry.  This is where the annotated version comes in handy, as Gardner reproduces the “originals” of many of the poems used, some being poems Carroll himself wrote before Wonderland and simply rewrote for this book, and others are parodies of existing popular poems which Carroll adapted to his story.   There are also dozens of puns, and Carroll – while a mathematician – loved word-play and logic puzzles, which he liberally injected into his stories. 

            Wonderland story.  Alice falls asleep and chases a White Rabbit into his hole.  After that she has a series of encounters: the Dodo, The Cheshire Cat, the Red Queen, the Mad Hatter & March Hare, finally winding up at a trial presided over by the Red Queen.  At trial, she herself is not the defendant, but the Knave of Hearts, who is portrayed as a lush (drunk).  It is at the trial, when all hell breaks loose, that she wakes up.

 Who was Lewis Carroll?  His real name was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, a mathematics teacher in 19^th century England who never married.  His fixation was on prepubscent girls, though he maintained that this was a non-sexual preference.  In modern times we would look askance at a man who preferred the companionship of girls over mature (post-pubescent) women – or boys, as we’re convinced (with some strong conviction, if not evidence, in the case of Michael Jackson) that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.  He even took nude pictures of the girls, though with the knowledge and permission, and in the presence of, the girls’ mothers.  At least, to this date, no evidence of tomfoolery has ever surfaced despite ample opportunity for such to be developed and investigated.  It seems that Carroll was asexual and favored girls because they would not make advances at him or be disappointed if he made no advances at them.

 I remember in high school psychology class, being shocked by Piaget and Freud suggesting latent sexuality in the minds of very young children, e.g. boys’ Oedipus complex.  But I’ve noticed that young girls seem to have a latent understanding of their role as child-bearers, though they clearly do not know or conceive of the actual manner in which babies are made, much less any understanding that adults consider the process enjoyable in its own right (“recreational sex” vs. “procreational sex”, as Frasier and Lilith put it in “Cheers”).  The simple proof is the abundance of baby dolls and miniature strollers, to which girls take with natural inclination.  They can see and appreciate the end result without any knowledge or awareness of how to get there.

 Boys, on the other hand, are nowhere close to this: their fixations is on “Action” and “violence”, being soldiers, policemen, firemen, or astronauts; their entire outlook is externally oriented.  The epitome of this is Buzz Lightyear, the “Toy Story” character (marvellously voiced by Tim Allen).  Not only is Buzz not domestically inclined (there is no Mrs. Lightyear, nor, for that matter, a curiously friendly male companion) he won’t even stay on the same PLANET!  “To Infinity and Beyond!” 

 So girls work backwards from babies to sex, whereas boys are never thinking of babies at all and discover sex when their bodies change – and even then, the focus is on SEX itself (“recreational”), with the baby-making element (“procreational”) entirely absent from their consciousness.   This is why “girls mature faster than boys”. 

 Anyhow, “Alice” was a real person, Alice Liddell, to whom Carroll would make up stories as he went along.  She suggested to him that he should actually write them down for public enjoyment, as she obviously recognized his talent and believed it would best be shared as much as possible.  She actually lived quite a long time – a newsreel of her in 1932 exists – but the Alice from Tenniel’s illustrations was either whole cloth imagination or a different girl, as the real Alice Liddell was a brunette who looked nothing like the Alice in Tenniel’s drawings.

 Tenniel.  The original illustrator.  I have the window sticker Alice talking to the Caterpillar in the back hatchglass of my Formula.  In 1901 another illustrator, Newell, took a stab at the venture, but his 1901 version does not appear to have been reprinted.  Gardner refers to his pictures by comparison to Tenniel, but never reproduces a single one.  With no reprints available, you can imagine that a 1901 original is not cheap.  So I can’t comment on Newell’s pictures.

            For his part, Tenniel was working closely with Carroll and they collaborated on the pictures.  Alice herself is portrayed as a young blonde girl with long hair and a pretty dress.  It seems the Disney illustrators updated Tenniel’s basic archetypes but remained essentially true to the Tenniel originals.  Tenniel was also drawing for Punch (political cartoons).

 Characters.  No matter what book, movie, etc. adaptation, we can expect certain stock characters to appear in some form.

Alice.  Usually, but not always, a young white blond female from England.  She is fairly intelligent and full of wonder, but baffled and sometimes frightened or discouraged by the whole thing.  She may even doubt her sanity or simply write it all off as “this is just a dream”, though that doesn’t work for the 2010 model Alice.

 White Rabbit.  Wearing a waistcoat and holding a pocket watch, he scampers about complaining that he’s “late”.  I liked the Disney version best, but the 2010 model was well done.  Incidentally, “White Rabbit” was done by The Great Society, Grace Slick’s pre-Jefferson Airplane band, a bit longer and more psychedelic.

 The Dodo.  Fussy and pompous in the Disney original, somewhat different in the others.  In the “Alice” miniseries he’s turned into a humanoid played by Tim Curry.

 Mad Hatter.  The MC of the tea party, he has a fairly modest role in the Disney classic yet is more of a central character in the other two movies (see below).  The 2010 movie gives him somewhat of a backstory, whereas he doesn’t appear mad at all in “Alice”.

 March Hare.  Sort of Trapper John/BJ Hunnicut to the Mad Hatter’s Hawkeye.  I liked his Disney version, somewhat of a rogue relative to the White Rabbit.

 Cheshire Cat.  As noted below, I think the Disney original pretty much defined this spectacularly bizarre character, who wears his madness with panache and flair, more so than even the Mad Hatter himself. 

 Caterpillar.  Surly and pompous, he sits on his mushroom puffing unknown smokables from his hookah pipe.  I have the classic picture in the rear window of my Formula.  As with the Dodo, in the “Alice” miniseries he’s turned into a humanoid.

 Red Queen.  Arrogant bitch who consistently demands “off with their heads” re: anyone evoking the least displeasure.  Well played by both Kathy Bates (“Alice”) and Helena Bonham Carter (Depp/Burton).

 White Queen.  Absent from Wonderland, she shows up in TTLG, as a nervous, fuss-budget white counterpart to the Red Queen.  In the Depp/Burton film she’s portrayed by Anne Hathaway and has a major role.

 Knave of Hearts.  His major original role was as defendant in the Wonderland trial, accused of stealing tarts from the Queen of Hearts.  In the Depp/Burton film, played by Crispin Glover in a vaguely Aragorn-esque fashion, he acts as the Red Queen’s enforcer, which clearly takes him well outside his original role.

 Having given the basics, here are the three major films.  Note: “Wonderland”, with Val Kilmer as John Holmes, is NOT about Alice, it is simply a depiction of the porn actor’s “role” in a series of killings.  Also, there have been many other film/TV versions of Alice in Wonderland which I know of but have not seen, and which are obscure; only the Alice in Wonderland/Lewis Carroll fanatics are aware of them and pay any attention to them.  I’m focusing here on the more mainstream adaptations.

 Disney Animated Film.  This originally came out in 1951.  I think of this as the classic standard, by which the others – animated or live action – should be judged.  Alice is young and pretty, but too young to be of interest to anyone.  The caterpillar is a real hoot: “who R U???” he puffs on his mushroom (predating text messaging by several decades).  The flowers accuse her of being a weed (surely she bore no resemblance to cannabis sativa!), and the Cheshire Cat is fantastic.  “He’s mad too,” he warns Alice, referring to the March Hare.  When she objects to associating with mad people, he advises her, “oh, you can’t help that.  You might have noticed, I’m not all there myself…” and proceeds to fade away.  Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum helpfully narrate the story of the “Walrus and the Carpenter”.  The White Queen is MIA, but the Red Queen makes up for that – “who’s been painting my roses red?” she screams (“not pink! Not green! Not aquamarine!” her cardsmen say).  I tend to think of this tendency to inject adult elements into children’s films as a recent phenomenon, but I can see that as far back as “Fantasia” (1940), Disney managed to be remarkably trippy and surreal even back then, yet is still charming and innocent enough for children. 

 “Alice”.  Somewhat trippy, and very long (3 hours) this was originally a 2-night cable movie (on SyFy).  It’s got an impressive cast, including Tim Curry (Dodo, looking nothing like one), Kathy Bates (the Red Queen), Matt Frewer (the White Knight), Harry Dean Stanton (the Caterpillar, looking nothing like a caterpillar), and Colm Meaney (the King of Hearts, considerably larger and more assertive than the Disney version), who I will always think of as Miles O’Brien from Star Trek Deep Space Nine.  Catarina Scorsone, who I haven’t seen anywhere else – and a brunette (???) – plays Alice.  Unlike the other Alices, this one definitely appeals to a post-pubescent male libido; she is definitely equipped.  The plot is extremely convoluted and taxed my imagination and patience.  The Walrus and Carpenter are here – the Carpenter turning out to be Alice’s long lost father.  Sleeping people from real life are enslaved here, sucked dry in a quasi-casino for emotions, very Matrix-y.  There is a power struggle against the Red Queen, led by the Hatter (Harry-Lee Potts, fairly conventional appearance relative to Johnny Depp, bearing a strong resemblance to Jack White). And Alice is pursuing her real-life fiancé, who turns out to be the Red Queen’s son.  I don’t want to spoil it for anyone with the patience to watch it (possibly spread over two nights the way it originally was) as it’s definitely on par with the next film. 

 Johnny Depp/Tim Burton film.   This was also from Disney.  Like “Alice”, this movie doesn’t attempt to re-tell the story, so much as revisit the dreamworld with Alice slightly older, giving it somewhat more of an adult plot and story line – as with “Alice”, there is a rebellion against the Red Queen, basically meaning that Alice has to slay her monster enforcer, the Jabberwocky, and by doing so effectively disarm her of the means of subjugating the dream world, liberating everyone – well that’s the plan, at least.  Johnny Depp, heavily made up, is the Mad Hatter.  He seems to know just how far, how over-the-top, he can push the role (similar to Jack Sparrow).  Helena Bonham Carter, in big head and little body, plays the Red Queen in similar fashion to her character in “Fight Club”.  The White Queen appears here, played by Anne Hathaway, as “cute but psycho”.  Alice herself is played by Mia Wasikowska, a fairly plain and dull girl who appears to be pretending to be Daria or the super-low-key girl from “Roseanne”, Sara Gilbert.  I was not too thrilled with the caterpillar, Absolem, voiced by Alan “Hans Gruber & Severus Snape” Rickman, more serious than trippy and grotesquely realistic unlike the original cartoon version, who was still surly but at least visually appealing.  The Knave of Hearts is here: Crispin Glover, with both arms!  I wasn’t too crazy about the Cheshire Cat here, who was a more cerebral than playful.  Entertaining, well done, of course, but no better than the “Alice” miniseries and NOT a serious threat to the archetype of the Disney original, though to be honest, I didn’t get the impression that Burton intended to replace the original so much as do his own homage to it, and to that extent it certainly succeeds. 

 There is a 1933 Paramount live action movie, with Gary Cooper and Cary Grant, among other A-list stars at the time, but I’ve yet to be able to rent it on DVD.  Gardner gave it poor marks.  There is also an X-rated version, which although available for $33 on DVD, I haven’t seen – if a DVD is $8, I’ll say “what the hell” and buy it sight unseen, but for $33 I’d rather know it’s not crap.  “Bored of the Rings”, the National Lampoon parody of Lord of the Rings, was atrocious; many spoofs or parodies are clumsily bungled by lesser lights well beneath the genius of the original author/creator, so I’m not hopeful that the X-rated version does the original justice; but as I said, I haven’t seen it. 

 Music.  I’m not aware that anyone has turned Wonderland into a full-length concept album.  Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit” is itself a reworking of a similar song Grace Slick wrote in her prior band, Great Society.  Much of Syd Barrett’s writing has a whimsical, child-fantasy nature to it, though the album title Piper at the Gates of Dawn is taken from Wind in the Willows, not Wonderland.  By extrapolation, Marc Bolan’s earlier T. Rex work, when his band was still named Tyrannosaurus Rex, is very Syd-influenced.