I DON’T EVEN KNOW where to begin with The Lego Movie. As evidenced by the financial success of the film and the Rotten Tomatoes rating that is as high as Monsters Inc. (a remarkable achievement in itself), the great majority of moviegoers and critics found themselves enchanted and even enamored. Pity me, then, as a lonely anomaly, who will never understand the innocuous joys that The Lego Movie has to offer me, or decry me as a contrarian, for what could I possibly find wrong with such a beloved kid’s movie? Everything. The Lego Movie is constructed as a formulaic action-adventure fable, where the unassuming everyman discovers he’s the Chosen One, and is compelled to discover unorthodox methods of defeating a fearsome villain, most involving inner fortitude and peppy assertiveness, after being recruited by a motley crew of goody-gooders. I can only presume it’s meant to be this way, and that its envisioned redeeming grace is that is it supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek send-up of such movies. To this end, inspirational claptrap is mixed with irreverent silliness and satire, and a few funny gags—the percentage of those that elicit more than a mild chuckle is Lilliputian—punctuate long stretches of run-of-the-mill tedium in which you’re not quite certain what the filmmakers hoped to achieve. You keep waiting for something to change but no, the only twist that comes is a cringe-worthy cop-out that destroys any interest you might have had in the ongoing onscreen proceedings. The Lego Movie wouldn’t have been so frustratingly humdrum if it had really gone and plumbed the depths of absurdity rather than being superficially quirky. In essence, it’s an unimaginative film masquerading as something smarter, funnier, better. It’s none of these things and the few qualities it does possess pretty much vanish after the first ten minutes. The Lego Movie, it turns out, is not a postmodern masterpiece but a bafflement, and a mediocre one at best. This is a film where a thousand Lego pieces go flying in every direction each millisecond, and yet I found myself bored by the story and increasingly weary of the throwaway witticisms (when they occurred). Not to mention, speculating on whether I was supposed to find this film visually appealing. If you squint, everything looks like a pixelly jumble; if you open your eyes wide and strive to spot every detail, everything looks like a painful mess to step on. C–
IT’S ALWAYS RARE, and rewarding, finding a sequel to an animated film that surpasses the quality of the original, but How To Train Your Dragon 2 is a worthy candidate for that honor. The first film combined heart, humor, and heroic adventure to create the winning story of an unlikely duo—the friendship of young Viking Hiccup and his dangerously cute and questionably named dragon,Toothless, was fraught with danger, love, and a substantial amount of initial misunderstanding. In How To Train Your Dragon 2, there’s more harmony, to be certain; the worlds of burly, bumbling Viking warriors and snarling, goofy dragons have been united thanks to the efforts of Hiccup and Toothless. But on one of their enterprising forays outside the island of Berk, our heroes discover an inconvenient truth: not everyone understands dragons like they do, and some, most worryingly, have different ideas of what to do with them. Heart, humor, and heroic adventure once again ensue in even greater capacity . But it’s worth seeing How To Train Your Dragon 2 just to see the most memorable five minutes of animation in recent years. As Hiccup, stubborn as always, sets out on his own to seek out the fearsome dragon conquerer Drago Bludvist and plead the case for mutual appreciation among earthly creatures, he and Toothless find themselves soaring over a vast dreamlike carpet of golden clouds. You just know they will encounter someone or something, but you aren’t prepared to see an armored figure terrifyingly rise up from the clouds below them—some kind of a pagan sorcerer, tall and terrible with a spiked mask and a staff, standing erect on the back on a gigantic dragon. Who is this person? Are we still watching How to Train Your Dragon 2, the blockbuster sequel from Dreamworks Animation? It’s a beautifully haunting, uncomfortably strange and wonderful scene that words cannot define appropriately. While dragon-flying is usually relegated to energetic, frenetic showcases full of gutsy swooping and elated hollering, and while those scenes, of which there are plenty in How To Train Your Dragon 2, possess their own thrills, to be sure, they appear commonplace compared to this magnificent sequence that truly makes your jaw drop. I would wish for more of these stunners, but once is more than enough. A
IT WAS QUITE the genius stroke of Hollywood cleverness how the promotional materials Alfonso Cuarón’s stuck-in-space thriller Gravity touted the ominously suggestive line, “Don’t let go.” After all, if there’s one universal and unimaginable fear that 99.9% of moviegoers have never experienced but can nevertheless vividly imagine without much effort, it must be the sheer terror of losing grip on whatever was tethering you to humanly existence and tumbling off into the farthest reaches of cold, dark space. But throughout the film, the protagonist of Gravity, an emotionally injured and increasingly beleaguered astronaut played by Sandra Bullock, regularly finds herself not in danger of letting go but rather facing the dire consequences of not letting go. And therein lies the beauty of Gravity. “Don’t let go”—if you let go, you die—represents what Gravity is on the surface, which is a survival thriller set in space, a race-against-the-clock actioner that physically pits our heroine against incredible odds and overwhelming obstacles on her journey to get back to Earth. “Let go”—if you don’t let go, you won’t ever live—succinctly sums up the psychological journey that Ms. Bullock’s character must undergo in the length of ninety minutes. This paradoxical parallelism sounds cheesy, and while it is, in a way, Mr. Cuarón presents the two themes together without embellishment or emphasis on the melodramatic, which results in a naturally occurring and wonderfully organic kind of cheesy. Gravity is not high art but perfectly entertaining— the kind of Hollywood blockbuster that enraptures you on the edge of your seat by value of its dramatical purity as much as by the stunning visual effects and other expensive technical achievements (the sound design and score is notable). Some have claimed that it’s the “smallest” Hollywood blockbuster in a while, or an intimate indie film cloaked as a big and loud movie-event experience. It’s not. It’s a big, loud movie-event experience pulled off with sophisticated restraint and minimalism. With George Clooney as George Clooney, a suave veteran astronaut with a penchant for listening to country music while lazily jetpacking around in Earth’s orbit. From 2013. A
STANLEY KUBRICK’s 1964 satirical black comedy Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is, most of the time, an exercise in seeing how far absurdity can go while still maintaining the sense of realism that comes inherent with playing on Cold War anxieties and alarm. The notion of an Air Force commander in the throes of anti-Communism passion-slash-paranoia ordering a decidedly unilateral preemptive bombing of the Soviet continent and kick starting World War III, because “war is too important to be left to the politicians,” still has the potency to make one uneasy and queasy. That the maverick Colonel Jack Ripper goes over the edge out of fear for the sanity and safety of his precious bodily fluids makes Sterling Hayden’s performance, played dead straight if unrestrained in its lunacy, seem like one long deadpan skit of comedic gold. Indeed, Dr. Strangelove succeeds as so much more than how it seems on paper because it melds together humor and drama elements congruous to create something altogether unique. Case in point: when the actors play it straight—even Slim Pickens as the cowboy Major T.J. “King” Kong—the sequences in the B-29 Superfortress as the crew doggedly undertakes their first-strike mission (insinuatingly underlaid with a subdued, solemn adaptation of the Civil War tune “When Johnny Comes Marching Home”) have a simple human poignancy and doomed nobleness to them that match the beautiful ending, where the mushroom clouds of nuclear explosions rise to Vera Lynn’s cozy “We’ll Meet Again.” But whenever the manic gum-smacking theatrics of the bellicose, Soviet-leery General “Buck” Turgidson, who George C. Scott plays with an endearing go-for-the-gold nuttiness, dominate the screen, Dr Strangelove is the film with the best ratio of memorable zingers to lines of dialogue. Peter Sellers, of course, is brilliant in his triple roles, most especially in that of U.S. President Merkin Muffley; when Muffley, ever the pragmatist, calls Soviet Premier Kissoff on the hotline, Sellers shows how to make a one-sided conversation a side-splitting laugh riot. Mr. Kubrick’s spectacularly razor-sharp film is a bitingly subversive social commentary about nuclear annihilation and the stupidity of the human race that manages to be so hysterically funny you forget how smart it is. Now that’s something you don’t see every day.
I don’t want to misspeak, but Thor: The Dark World might just be the comic-book-iest film that Marvel has produced yet, and that’s wonderful. And yet, to be expected. After all, between Iron Man, the Hulk, or Captain America, Thor, the hunky Norse god, is the only superhero that lives, quite literally, worlds apart from us. Sure, his heart belongs to Natalie Portman, on Earth, but his home is the golden, gleaming citadel of Asgard, galaxies away. Visually, such a level of world-building is always tricky, expecially, it seems, when a large budget permitting excess usage of CGI is involved, and Asgard is clearly not a matte painting (although that would have been nice). And thematically, how do you make the audience care without spending too much time doing so? The Asgard in Thor fails on many of these points, true. But it doesn’t really matter. It’s much more exciting, and frightening indeed, to see such a fantastical city coming under attack than seeing New York City leveled, if only because maybe we can’t imagine it as clearly. Asgard could have easily been Marvel’s Minas Tirith, if that had been the wish of the filmmakers, and, similarly, when Asgard comes under attack, it could have easily held the same emotional significance as when the White City was besieged (in The Lord of the Rings). Although it was not to be, still, Asgard and its denizens are realized satisfactorily enough. I particularly liked Heimdall, the all-seeing guardian of the Bifröst, an revolving portal to the planet of your choosing, attached to an impressively out-there rainbow bridge leading to Asgard. He’s played by Idris Elba, outfitted with a golden suit of armor—complete with a horned Viking helmet—and multi-colored eyes of unfathomable, almost doleful depths, which is not unusual considering that he stands gazing out at the myriad universes and the billions of lives arrayed in front of him all day. Although that’s literally all you know about him, you find yourself hoping Heimdall won’t be killed off, if only because he is a good reassurance that while onscreen, “Thor” is a comic-book movie that isn’t afraid to be a comic-book movie. Is Heimdall substantial to the plot? Not really. But if you’re making an off-world superhero adventure, why not indulge a little in the cool details of that faraway land, unbound by any expectations of realism? Since it seems superhero movies are required to culminate in explosive, expensive world-destroying that involves an alien ship descending on Earth and wreaking havoc, however, here the finale involves the alignment of the planets over the Greenwich Observatory, in England and not in Asgard. It’s another noisy, who-can-get-back-up-the-fastest-after-being-thrown-fifty-feet battle, although here the film experiments with Thor and the bad guy tumbling though invisible, randomly-situated “portals” that suck them up mid-brawl onto different worlds and then spit them back out again. True, it makes things marginally more interesting, but all super-important, fate-of-the-universe match-ups are getting stale. The superhero, out-matched but redoubtable still, needs to delay the destruction while his human friends scientifically fiddle with buttons and try not to get killed. Here in Thor: The Dark World it’s no different, and you wish that something other was at stake than our skyscrapers. Wouldn’t it be so much more exciting if Asgard instead recieved the attention it deserves?
Let’s face it: Disney princess movies do not, in general, represent women well and do not teach little girls useful life lessons. This doesn’t stop most people from loving them anyhow, but there are also many who deplore the films for their sexism, and we mustn’t neglect them. The usual punching bags are 1937′s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, 1950′s Cinderella and, especially, 1959′s Sleeping Beauty, the last princess movie that Disney would produce before The Little Mermaid, which kicked off the company’s progressive Golden Age in the 1980s, thirty years later. It’s convenient to bunch these three films together as the terrible trio, outdated in values (if not in quality), but they were made years apart from each other and it shows. When it comes to positive representation of women, Cinderella is a marked improvement from Snow White, whose sexism is rampant, and Sleeping Beauty isn’t sexist at all. This amelioration in attitudes cannot be explained solely by the evolution of the princess, the lead female character, into something with little more chutzpah and independence. However unlikely, the prince has a lot to do with it. The nameless prince of Snow White is briefly seen and rarely missed; Prince Philip of Sleeping Beauty is an energetic, witty hero with a modern outlook—and wisecracks—on marriage. One might assume that the prince becomes increasingly important only at the expense of the princess. But that is fundamentally incorrect and very much untrue.
Snow White is particularly insulting to women because the prince could well have been a cardboard cutout for all his involvement in the story—he’s almost nonexistent. And yet that’s worse than if he were the main character. What makes Snow White the most sexist of all the Disney princess movies is not Snow White, who likes to sweep and cook and is a genial, gullible soul, but the prince himself, both unimportant and important. It’s sexist when the princess is saved by a prince who hasn’t earned the respect of neither the princess nor the audience and yet, cheers are expected when he comes to save the day. I didn’t cheer at the end of Snow White but probably would have had Grumpy laid the prince low with the blunt end of a pickaxe. In Sleeping Beauty, Prince Philip isn’t just a prince in name who pops up when convenient. He proves that he is deserving of his princess by fighting for her hand.
Prince Philip’s valor and bravery doesn’t work adversely and negatively accentuate Aurora’s titular role, dormant as it is, because she isn’t the archetypical maiden waiting for her prince to come and rescue her. At first, sure, she wistfully longs for her “dream prince”—a vague, impersonal, if important, figure in her mind. But all her girlish fantasies become insignificant once she meets Philip. Aurora never learns he is a prince, and Philip never realizes that she is the princess to whom he was betrothed a long time ago. And yet the wonderful thing is they still fall in love with each other. Aurora actually doesn’t care if her true love is or isn’t royalty. In fact, when the fairies reveal her royal status and her imminent marriage to a prince, she is—not knowing that said prince is Phillip—inconsolably distraught. At that moment, she would rather be a peasant girl in love than a princess. She doesn’t want servants or a kingdom or a closetful of pretty dresses, she wants the man she loves. The fact that Philip is actually her dream prince is a clever twist that reinforces the classic fairy-tale trope while switching things up refreshingly. It’s not “wait for your prince” but, undeniably, “true love conquers all.”
Both Sleeping Beauty and Snow White feature similarly plain-vanilla imagery— a princess under a sleeping spell, which is lifted only when her true love kisses her. But there are as many differences between Aurora and Snow White as there are between Prince Phillip and his insultingly empty predecessor. Aurora was never abused as a maidservant in her own home—she had a happy and innocent childhood full of love and care. She was never cursed or hated or abused because of her femininity, unlike Snow White or Cinderella—a sorceress was spurned, and in revenge she directed her spite onto Aurora, a baby at the time. (The sorceress, Malificient, is another interesting female character. Unlike Cinderella’s Evil Stepmother or Snow White’s Queen, her hatred of Aurora never stems from jealousy or envy. She just wants to kill her because, as a independent, powerful woman, she can.)Aurora was a victim but never victimized herself. Her cursed sleep has no direct correlation with her strength of character or lack of it. And it’s strange that Sleeping Beauty is perceived as sexist merely because a prince does all the heroic work while the princess lies under a curse. To believe that having the true love of your life slay a dragon while you are incapacitated by magic indicates your inability to handle the problem yourself is plain bizarre. Isn’t it to be expected that a man like Philip risk life and limb for his beloved? If the roles had been reversed, would it still be sexist?
Yes, Disney could have been über-progressive in 1959 by making Aurora an Amazonian warrior-princess, or not have her cursed in the first place so she can wield the Sword of Truth herself. But that is a different movie, and it’s called Brave. That animated film, released in 2012 by Disney, would have ideally shown girls that a strong and independent young woman needs neither a man nor marriage to feel secure or happy. The filmmakers squander that, however, by insuring that that every male character in the film is dimwitted or silly or the subject of all-ages derision. Princess Merida, the heroine, cannot imagine a permanent union, or even a conversation, with any of her suitors, who are all incompetent idiots crafted solely for comic relief, and we can’t seriously expect her to. Brave chose (what can only be described as) the easy way out by avoiding a strong male character out of fear that a hero would compromise the independence and diminish the fierceness of Merida—or worse, that it would raise the very ghost of such possible criticism.
Whatever gave them that idea? Brave, fundamentally, never touched once upon what Sleeping Beauty and the other princess films were invested in with every fabric of their being—true love, the type that only exists in fairy tales. Not in this one, though, purportedly “modern” and “evolved,” because Merida regards marriage with contempt. That’s fine, she’s young and hasn’t found anyone worthy. But would she have changed her mind if her Prince Phillip came riding along? Would that have raised the ire of feminists? It does make you wonder why there hasn’t been any Disney princess film that has the princess slaying a dragon alongside her prince—before getting married and living happily ever after in quiet domestic bliss as wife and husband. And until that happens, I prefer the story of Sleeping Beauty to Brave’s by a long shot. I would rather watch Aurora and Prince Philip waltzing in a woodland glade and warbling Tchaikovsky because if happily-ever-after romances, real love stories like the one of Sleeping Beauty, don’t happen in Disney fairy-tales, where would they? Not in real life, with all its double standards and fake outrage. It’s not archaic, it’s timeless; it’s not something to deride, it’s something to love. And it’s time for people to wake up and smell the roses.
The newest film by Terrence Malick, To The Wonder, with Ben Affleck and Olga Kurylenko as two lovers, has become somewhat legendary for all the twirling it contains. Kurylenko twirls in Mont-St. Michel and in Paris, in France, while Affleck watches and holds her tenderly; he is an American and brings her and her child back to Oklahoma with him. There, she twirls also, while he watches and holds her tenderly, but he also begins to wonder if he did the right thing bringing her over to the States, to the ugly Middle America where he works as an environmental inspector, and she does too. The Tree of Life, Malick’s previous work from 2011, was full of twirling (although not as much if I remember correctly) but Jessica Chastain did so as the personification of natural grace, and it made sense in a movie that was both beautiful and alive. That film startled you. When the camera follows Kurylenko drifting down the wide streets of her new neighborhood, grasping her shawl tighter around her thin body and glancing around like a lost child, you can tell she’s feeling alienated and alone and I felt sorry for her; when she caresses and kisses Affleck through the white translucent curtains of their window, even writhing around on the carpet, you can tell she’s very much in love and I feel happy for her. But that’s the extent of my emotional involvement in this movie—others will be enraptured, certainly, and others will give up. I was neither exactly bored nor moved by the onscreen proceedings of To the Wonder. The music and the visuals together make it an attractive film. Perhaps because I noticed things that seemed odd—take for instance, the couple’s house, which could be called tastefully and sparsefully decorated except that the better word to describe it would be empty. It’s a large thing perched on the corner of a very wide, open street in a housing development somewhere in Oklahoma that resembles an aggrandized suburb. Inside, Affleck sits on a chair in the middle of a room and reads a book while Kurylenko looks out the window; the camera lingers on cutlery, coldly gleaming on the countertop, when they do the dishes together. It seems emotionally aloof and put-on. That’s why I was happy when Rachel McAdams appeared to steal Affleck away for all too brief a time, as a former childhood flame and proprietor of a ranch, she appears in golden wheat fields and among snorting horses, and brings more life and real flare into the picture. You feel as if she knew what to do when the cameras started rolling, and she didn’t have to twirl as much to convey emotion. With Javier Bardem, who, with a thick accent, provides much of the philosophical God-querying voiceover as a local priest with a crisis of belief. From 2013. B–
“Elysium” has a nice premise: a 140-odd years from now, the privileged few live in a giant space station, Elysium, an idyllic habitat complete with suburban mansions and swimming pools, high above the polluted and diseased Earth. But that’s where the good ideas end. “Elysium” involves a desperate man named Max, who has only a few days to live after a radiation accident at work, and a race to upload society-upending data—which a lot of bad people would kill for— from his brain into a central computer of Elysium before his time runs out. Doing so would make everyone, a citizen of Elysium, and therefore privy to free health care—you lie down in a bed that heals you if you are stricken with a degenerative illness and reconstructs your face if it was blown off by a grenade. The citizens of Elysium have this technology, the billions suffering on Earth don’t. Max, played by Matt Damon, and about to die, wants to get up there and heal himself. At the same time, the idea is to save humanity, and his loved one’s daughter, because he and some other criminals got their hands on lines and lines of code that would reset the whole system and have it stored in Max’s brain with the help of an exo-skeleton, which also grants him superhuman strength.
The film is directed by Neil Blomkamp, who made “District 9.” The great thing about that movie, sharp and almost satiric, was that it could be summed up in a few words: NO ALIENS ALLOWED. It reversed the dominant alien-invasion concept, and was a stroke of pure genius. What “Elysium” has to say is neither particularly sharp nor satiric, nor does it awe you; it’s an angry fists-in-the-air film about how the wealthy will fall and social equality will prevail. The ending has gleaming medical ships descending down from Elysium and healing the world, which is nice, to be sure, but while watching all I could think of was how “Elysium” seemed to be the product of a group of film students’ Red Bull-besotted minds, while they were playing HALO and television coverage of Occupy Wall Street was on in the background. “Elysium” has great visual effects, and has moments that would make for an impressive reel, but the story reeks of an amateur, inferior, careless, flawed quality.
There’s a scene early on that demonstrates the unblinking iciness of the Elysium security chief, played by Jodie Foster, and a lot of other things too. Three spaceships, full of refugees seeking medical attention, launch from Earth and attempt to reach Elysium. Foster, with parsed lips, and the rest of her team watch the trajectory of the ships on a big screen which flashes big words for the audience’s sake. She doesn’t order them to be shot down immediately but instead sends word down to one of her agents on Earth, who fires missiles up into the atmosphere with a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher. Two of the ships are blown up; the other does basic evasive maneuvering and manages to land on Elysium (what happened to the missile?), strewing refugees all across perfectly kept green lawns and causing cocktail glasses to be dropped in panic. Homeland Security, represented by gleaming red robots, run around with Tasers. It’s a big scandal. You bet. My mouth was agape with incredulity. Are you telling me that the space station home to the richest people (not) on Earth doesn’t have some kind of automated defense system? Can anyone pick up a big gun and send a missile up to Elysium, or with a little amount of luck fly a spaceship onto someone’s mansion? This might seem like nitpicking, but it’s the kind of filling-in-the-details world-building that is woefully lacking and makes “Elysium,” so full of holes that it’s sinking, suffer. C+
It’s a precious rarity when a film allows the whole spectrum of human emotion to be experienced—despair, exuberant joy, sadness, happiness, awe, fear, when all these emotions are woken up. It doesn’t happen a lot, despite it being what we go to the movies for, to be moved and entertained as the same time. To be emotionally involved in a story that yet is a effortless joy to watch, and great fun. “Fiddler on the Roof,” Norman Jewison’s adaptation of the Broadway show of the same name, is a large Hollywood production that can very easily make you laugh and cry and sing. It’s the story of a poor Jewish peasant, Tevye, and his large family in 19th century Ukrainian Russia, who suffer through the hardships that befall every impoverished peasant in that time and more, seeing as Orthodox Christian Russia does not look kindly upon the Jews, and three of his daughters are ready to be married in a changing world. It’s the story of the small village of Anatevka. It’s the story of the fiddler on the roof, the personifcation of tradition, as he heralds the dawn each morning with his music from a perch as precarious as the situation of the Jewish peasants. It’s stirring and vivid, tragic and uplifting, pure and simple, old-fashioned and timeless.
Tevye, inhabited by Chaim Topol, is the father of the family and the village milkman. He’s a big simple and sturdy man, and he can take most things in stride. It’s a hard life, but it’s what God gave him (though that doesn’t mean Tevye can’t ask him why) and it’s how it always was. He isn’t bowed down by his miserable existence. When he breaks into song, such as “If I Were a Rich Man,” and lifts his arms in the air while shaking his large chest side-to-side and thumping his heart, and stamps gaily around his barn above his horse and his chickens and cows, it’s breathtakingly assaultive. It’s so full to the brim with life, and the joy of living, that you can’t imagine it’ll get more buoyant or happy. Topol turns it into a celebratory song, one that makes you want to get up and shout and stamp your feet and shake. There are others like it, such as the one aptly called “To Life!,” where Tevye and other Jewish peasants do dance and drink in the pub with each other and even with the Orthodox Christians, and another at his eldest daughter’s wedding (where the dancers link arms and kick their legs out and slide forward low, kicking up dust onto their traditional black garb while balancing bottles on their hats. Oy vey!)
“Fiddler on the Roof” looks lovingly upon tradition, the glue by which Tevye’s family remain together, and regards progess as an unstoppable and ultimately liberating force, which people like Tevye don’t particularly like, understandably, but who said they had to? They are all the products of their time, and his time was when he was the strict but loving father whose word was law in the household. This has been seen countless times on film, but what happens when this tradition is upended, less. It all starts when Tevye’s three eldest daughters, one after the other, express their wishes to be married to people he doesn’t like. His eldest Tzeitel is in love with Motel, the hapless tailor. Tevye doesn’t understand it, and doesn’t like it, especially because he has already married her off to the butcher, a man his own age, but after musing on it (in one of the many “On the Other Hand” soliquoys) agrees to it. His second daughter leaves him really no choice when she asks him for his blessing, and not his permission, as she is already pledged to Perchik, a forward-thinking student. Tevye is not very pleased but, after stroking his beard and weighing the pros and cons, gives his blessing and his permission.
His third daughter, however, elopes with a sensitive blond Russian Christian peasant, h0wever and marries outside the faith. The residents of Anatevka are evicted following an edict from the tsar, and cast out left and right. The film ends with Tevye and his wife and his remaining children on the road with all their belongings. As he pulls his wagon in the mud, he hears the strains of music and turns to see the fiddler following him and his family. With a smile and a jerk of his head, Tevye indicates the fiddler to follow and continues on their journey. I wished we could, too.
One must accept, nowadays, that when a major Hollywood studio introduces (by way of reinvention) a new superhero, the film that emerges will most certainly be an “origins story,” meaning that much time is spent on the making of the hero, and great–or if you look at it another way, very little–importance is placed on the ending, so that it sets up satisfactorily another story, and so forth, until we have ourselves a very profitable little franchise. Some might grumble at the first film which seems to be an expensive probe, testing the waters to gauge the general interest, and which, standing alone against more virtuous work, has not much value. But, if done successfully, we all agree that the next one has much potential to be great, now that the brand is a guaranteed money-maker and executives have relaxed momentarily. I thought about this after watching Disney’s “The Lone Ranger,” which is certainly the most perfect example of an origins story.
The film, made by the “Pirates of the Caribbean” team, runs for two hours and a half, and not until the last thirty minutes does the Lone Ranger really come out with guns blazing. Only for those last thirty minutes do you have the white ten-gallon hat, the tin star, the lasso, the horse, the attitude, and the Lone Ranger himself, very comically uprightly played by Armie Hammer. After much thinking, the man arrives at the conclusion that he should take the law into his own hands for the good of all. So, he gallops on top of a speeding train, saves the day, and then rides off into the desert, because if you resolutely utter a few words and disappear into the sunset you are not a genuine gunslinger. I would add, “Hi-ho, Silver! Away!”, which I think is a splendid line, but apparently—it is used once in the film—it’s too cartoonish to treat without ridicule. Go figure.
But, anyhow, onto the sequels. The next adventure which just might have more distinction and creativity to it. Barring the fact that sequels just might never materialize, which destroys the purpose of “The Lone Ranger” really existing, one cannot say it made a good case for itself—it curiously squanders itself, and possibly its next installments as well, with deeply confusing frame narrative in which a wizened old Tonto in 1930s San Francisco relates the story which happened many decades ago. Why? Who knows. Tonto—also known as a less bavard Jack Sparrow, also known as an uninspired Johnny Depp—now that his Wild Wild West days are spent, works all day in a fairground exhibit, stiff and immobile as the “Noble Savage.” He tells the origins story of the Lone Ranger, and his mystical Native American friend Tonto, meaning himself, to a disbelieving young boy dressed up as a cowboy.
To reiterate: the film begins with Old Tonto and it ends with Old Tonto, for some reason, hobbling brokenly into the desert in a long, unbroken shot over which the credits roll (I didn’t stick to see how long it lasted). But, again, why? This narrative framing makes the heroic exploits of the Lone Ranger belong in the past; apparently, the story is over before it has even properly begun. It is really the most befuddling thing in a film that is otherwise straightforward and honest in its reason of existence—to serve a higher purpose, and not itself.
Photo via Google Images.