WHATEVER HAPPENED TO IMAGINATION?

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO IMAGINATION?

It is only when we bow to society, and tell ourselves we are grown up that we forever cease to be young.

In past blogs, I have discussed films of a more mature nature, aimed at a certain type of audience. So, I have put together the following list of films from a different genre targeted at younger viewers. You will find I’ve highlighted family friendly films, which I think deserve to be seen by everyone. We have entered an era of female emasculation and we  have gradually seen more emasculated looking actors or even people in wheelchairs due what we call political correctness. The way society mirrors the values of current political elite, who just so happen to have been upper-middle class Mormons for around 10 years now.

I personally enjoy darker, more serious films, but I accept not everyone enjoys the same.

I don’t believe in patronising younger audiences, and the films I’ve chosen were produced some time ago. These films are classics that have shown no sign of ageing. And, what’s of paramount importance is that they don’t undermine their young audience with puerile humour, and sexual references. Many films of today, aimed at younger audiences, go above and beyond to undermine their young audiences…some quite disturbingly. So a certified U film ironically doesn’t always mean it’s suitable for all.

WHY IS THIS?

In a nutshell, younger audiences and families make up the largest demographic of cinema-goers, so they also represent the largest market. Cinema is an art-form and always has been, but it is very lucrative. A problem occurs when family films make so much money that producers tend to bank-roll corporate by-products disguised as films as sequels, follow ups, or similar related movies in a rush.

You name it, if it makes money they'll literally peddle it out, regardless of effort or quality. So younger audiences have suffered the most in terms of quality cinema for sometime now as a result of the corporate machine, which has reduced children's films to patronising nonsense. (I'll add that the our television programming aimed at younger audiences has declined that much that it should carry a must not resuscitate code. 

Growing up in the 1990's television and film was excellent for children..I loved. I spent more time as a child watching children's television than I did school or going outdoors.

Young people today are being geared (pushed)  towards science  in schools, and away from philosophical free thinking, purely because one area may provide them with a larger and more economically consistent paycheck and skills, and the media in the form of children's television and cinema upholds this narrative the system is pushing and has been for the past 20 years.

When we gauge human life and society this way, we are nothing more than socially well adjusted eggs on a production line keeping the stream flowing in only one direction, and quite literally just out the other-side again, if you catch my drift.

Don't tell me what you think you should say or what greater society tells you to say or do. 

Tell me what you want to do or what you feel.

Who are you?  

It was so much fun and it was layered, funny, and thought provoking. Now its gone from an uninspired talking block of cheese to a very poorly animated pig, with an even more unimaginative name.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION AND HOW DO WE IDENTIFY THEM?

Be very cautious of CGI family films. They are often, though not always, a sign of a cheap production. I've struggled to except CGI and don't truly see the value in it, aside from filling in where  laboured and inspired cinematography isn't needed.

Another tell tale sign is Hollywood type casting with big studio actor's names,as  again half the budget or more will go on the actor's salaries, leaving nothing much left for the actual film.

And finally, and with a heavy heart, I have to say avoid anything with an animal in it, aside from Watership Down, of course. I'll be selecting some animal based movies shortly, but as a general rule of thumb, steer clear of family films with animals in them. They are often beyond the pale, undermine cinema, undermine the industry, and most importantly undermine their young target audience.

I've spoken very highly of Walt Disney studio's in the past, and believe they are an exception to the rule. The studio has a formula that recognises the need for darker films for children that steer clear of patronising them, and I've included Return to Oz in this list.

The recent so-called Disney Renaissance remake period has been going really well, and proving a lucrative yet cinematic-ally worthwhile venture.

 Back to my list, these movie choices retain suitability for a younger audience without undermining them. They also explore themes that everyone can relate to. After all, what are we but pieces on a chessboard if we cannot step outside the confines of what society deems is right for are personal viewing?

Labyrinth (1986)

1986’s Labyrinth was a meeting of great minds that just all happened to be around in mid-1980’s.

Jim Henson, having had moderate success with ‘Dark Crystal’, moved to his next project – Labyrinth. Like ‘Dark Crystal’ it incorporated Brian Froud’s design work. There is a more serious undercurrent at play within this film, which is more affecting for adults than for younger audiences, making it a film to be appreciated by all ages.

 This darker tone is particularly apparent in the story involving troubled teen Sarah. Feeling cast aside by her new baby brother’s presence, her behaviour and attitude appear to reflect a youth with conflicts. However, the real reason for Sarah’s distress involves her fear of ‘growing up’ and her brother is just acting as the catalyst for these anxieties.

This troubling situation, combined with being influenced by her interests in other worldly characters and fantasy, leads her to summon what she assumes is a fictional Goblin King called Jareth (David Bowie). To her horror, Jareth appears to be real, and along with his Goblin army they then kidnap her baby brother and give Sarah an ultimatum to solve the Labyrinth or lose her brother forever.

 Labyrinth is true fantasy, and is scene after scene of the most imaginative characters and set designs I’ve seen in a film. There’s a lot of references to other works such as ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and more closely ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’ 

Actor David Bowie was at the peak of his powers in film during the 1980’s and he was one of the few singers that tried acting and actually produced some great work. He was equally impressive in ‘The Hunger’ and took a leading role in ‘Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence’.

 I also enjoy the sense of ambiguity in the film. There are more than a few references in the movie that imply Sarah could be imagining everything taking place, but that’s the essence of fantasy.

Watership Down (1978)

If there was ever a landmark animation film, it would be Watership Down. It’s in a category all of its own and it’s also an important film for younger audiences to watch. It makes audiences appreciate the characters (who happen to be rabbits) and subsequently view these creatures in a much more profound way.

However, as adults the films themes take on a more profound meaning and can be a tough watch due to the symbolism of life and death and coping with loss. The characters in the film are a metaphor, and although the film is based on the classic novel by Richard Adams, the film has become its own and conveys its own message using beautiful hand-drawn animation.

We tend to skirt around the meaning of life by not recognising the naturally cruel nature of life in and of itself, and in society we tend to sugar-coat death where children are concerned, which is something Watership Down writer Richard Adams was very vocal about during his life, and he would explore the nature of death in his work.

Ultimately, we are born, and we grow old and die. There isn't really anything good about that. Society will prepare you for and is  geared towards reality or a reality of death, but this doesn't mean it has any virtue or meaning. It is an unpleasant fact of existence. We can break greater society in half by choosing to believe in something that has no science behind it....pure fantasy, and it requires no effort whatsoever...just an open mind.

If we view society, through the paradigm of Christ, the teachings of the Church of England, and the Conservative manual of life in Britain, then we do ourselves an injustice. Rabbits, for instance, have no understanding of such things, which by default makes them stronger and of more intrinsic worth. The very fact that they live instinctively through one day to the next, surviving and flourishing, without destroying the planet or contributing to the earth's destruction means they are of more worth and respect than humans of all kinds.

The classic film Watership Down hasn’t lost any of its power and feels more relevant today than when it was released in 1978. Watership Down speaks to the unanswered questions we will never get to resolve when it comes to loss of life and its meaning. It succeeds in characterising the rabbits, so you can have a deeper appreciation of them as animals. Animals that you should respect and admire.

 

Life and Death

Death: there are only two things in life that are not burdened by death, and they are animals and youth. We all come to a point in our life’s where we have to face death. As a matter of fact, I've always got a kick out of facing people and things, but death is a lose/lose battle for everyone. I can't beat it, and I can't confront it. I just have to expect it at some point, and try to avoid it. It is in this sense that I think of death as an embodiment, not unlike the menacing scythe welding cloaked figure or the so called angel of death.

The rabbits in Watership Down may be fictional characters in the book and film, but the situations the rabbits face, such as crossing busy roads, traps, antagonistic farmers, and the need to understand god (or a god) are themes we can all relate too, some more than others.

The primary themes in Watership Down involve life and death.  

These primary themes echo an important principle in that we shouldn’t fear or challenge death, or the nature of death, and that we can meet death half-way by valuing life and respecting and not harming animals. Otherwise we’re just doing deaths job for him, and he's got enough on his plate without our help.

I enjoy these allegorical films the most, and think all films should contain something that makes us question our position in society, and uncover the real value or meaning in any given situation.

 There isn't any substantial justification for anything in life anymore, other than to follow your heart. I don't believe you can instil principles, rules, or morals into anyone. You just are and we tend to just compare or reflect on the human condition with that which we have created ourselves, in order to justify humanity or give it semblance, purpose, or meaning.

In reality, we are just animals that serve our time and then rot in the earth or burn in a crematorium.

Death when greeted with respect can motivate. Watership Down explores the themes surrounding the nature of death very eloquently, and the 1978 film still has an impact.

Along with John Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13, another film which wasn’t afraid to examine  life and death and understand the  value of embracing  a stigmatised group to overcome greater perils that can only be extinguished by collaboration, Watership Down is amongst my personal favourites.

There is an hypocrisy surrounding the consumption of flesh that requires thought. It is fair to say there is a spiritual moment in saying grace before a meal, but what perplexes me is that I personally could not murder  an animal, especially a Turkey for Christmas.

Childhood fantasy, life and death, and religion, mask reality. The means of production, especially in the meat industry, are deeply questionable, and repugnant. Yet as a society we gloss over the production of meat, but don't gloss over other areas of immorality.

I believe this is purely because of the nature of fiscal profit connected with the meat industry. In other-words, much of society is a facade, and concealing horrible realities.

I still admire fantasy and find this genre of cinema very endearing, but as I've stated throughout the blog, fantasy is fantasy and when it is married with political correctness it ceases to be fantasy, and becomes just another corporate by-product.

Black Beauty (1994)

   1994’s Black Beauty, based on the classic 1877 novel by Anna Sewell is a decent film. They have tried to remain faithful to the source material, but the film doesn’t step outside the realm of strict, well-meaning novel adaptations, which I don’t mind, but it doesn’t go anywhere else as film artistically. It’s still a good recommendation, as it’s beautifully made, if a little straight-forward and slightly un-affecting overall.

The Secret Garden (1993)

The Secret Garden should be on a list of its own. It’s an exceptionally well-made film, looks incredible, and, unlike Black Beauty, has a feel all of its own (a director's signature style, if you will).  The film is based on the novel of the same name by Frances Hodgson Burnett. There’s some creative flair in here and some very atmospheric film-making.

The young and privileged Mary Lennox is sent to live at her uncle’s mansion – Misselthwaite Manor in Yorkshire (Allerton Castle was used during filming) – after a family tragedy leaves her as an orphan. During her time there she uncovers a secret garden, makes new friends, and is introduced to her cousin, Colin, who may or may not be gravely ill. 

 It’s a fascinating story and really uplifting as a film. It never falters from start to finish, and is equally satisfying for adults, if not more so.

Lord Archibald Craven (John Lynch) who closed the garden after the accidental death of his wife is portrayed very well. I thought he was very complex and misunderstood.

Thankfully, the film has a very positive ending where everyone makes peace and overcomes their tragic predicaments, which is a recurring theme throughout the novel and the film. It’s in this sense I find The Secret Garden a very inspirational film for anyone wanting to turn over a new leaf and start again.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas  & The Cat in the Hat

How the Grinch Stole Christmas was released in 2000, and was directed by Ron Howard.

The film, though based on the children's book by Dr. Suess, expanded on its source material greatly, reworking characters (including developing on the minor character of Cindy Lou (Taylor Momsen) and giving the character of the Grinch some backstory.

The set design is and recreation of Whoville is awesome, and Jim Carrey works perfectly as the eponymous title character. Some critics dismissed the film, but I thought it captured the spirit of the source material and successfully tried its own thing too.

The Cat in the Hat (2003) attempted to follow the financial success of the Grinch but failed quite miserably, failing to recoup any profit and only grossing $133 million from a budget of $109.

The film pales greatly compared to The Grinch, but I've included it as I still think it has merit.

The film succeeds visually but fails narratively. Young audiences are smarter than this and I feel the screenplay undermined its target audience. Nevertheless, it is still a fun watch.

Both these movies bring their characters to life vividly with vivid colours and eye-catching set design.

There is some subtle adult humour in both of these movies, and despite neither of them being classics, the Grinch is required viewing during the Christmas season.

The Neverending Story (1984)

The Neverending Story broke the mould for children’s films in half. It is an allegorical fantasy which was produced in West Germany with some American involvement, and it’s full of Germanic rich fantasy overtones. It tells the story of Bastien who yields little control in his real life, but he finds solace in a book called ‘The Never-ending Story’. The book serves as a passage into a fantastical world where he can escape from the confines of the real world, and into one that has limitless possibilities.

  

 It’s a world where he can take control, and alter the story as he reads it, and this unfolding story is brought to life on the screen in the guise of Atreyu, who is on a quest to save a crumbling world from ‘The Nothing’ and find a cure for the child-like Empress of Fantasia.

It’s well-crafted and contains some great scenes – a particularly bleak but effective scene occurs involving Atreyu’s horse, Artax, sinking within The Swamps of Sadness, a symbolic representation of depression with the horse literally sinking into despair or in this instance, the nothing. This scene is played out so organically it’s almost as if this tragic situation is unfolding in real-life.

  

The Never-Ending Story is deeply allegorical, and I think its themes are strong, and have created room for discussion surrounding the importance of fantasy when combined with reality.

The source novel writer distanced himself from the film, but this is a visually very strong depiction of its themes and film should always tell its stories visually not rely on a narrative alone, in my opinion.

I also think the child-like empress would be portrayed by a 30-year-old actress today.

Why?

Because cinema has become strongly influenced by political correctness and a political narrative which suggests children and young adults should view more grounded, controlled, and academic media or view cinema that follows a distinct set of rules, and avoid anything dark or anything representative of  just following your heart or imagination. This is purely because they intend to engineer society into a generation of young corporate zombies that are fuelled only by the need to attain capital and be self sufficient in both their finances and the way in which they lead there lives. This sounds o.k in theory but it isn't because such mentalities  don't truly exist. Repressing the imagination or repressing any kind of  free thought just creates a toxic and unhealthy society, regardless of how much income they are bringing in. Either-way, if it doesn't show cracks in the framework to begin with, it will almost certainly buckle altogether at some point, because you can't fundamentally engineer any society. History has proven that ideologies of all kinds eventually collapse and that good elements and bad elements form a functioning part of all healthy societies. If we intend to flush out all the bad, we will fail society altogether and deny ourselves our own humanity. The whole current chasm with a corrosive, elitist, hereditary monarchy  and an old-money Conservative government dictates that society as a whole is destined to fail. Unless we open the floodgates to reality our time on this earth will be forever dictated by those who simply can, just because top-down society allows them to flourish, whilst leaving us to sink. 

Cinema and society needs to loosen up, and stop fearing political influence of all kinds.

I personally believe society, outside of cinema, should ignore political influence full stop, but that has never gone down or been accepted by others.

Darkest Fears and Insecurities

The notions of tackling your darkest fears and insecurities are themes everyone can relate to, and should you open your mind to these themes, the film can be a rewarding and cathartic experience

Some particular scenes of Atreyu on his quest are very memorable; one scene involves a gateway guarded by giant Sphinxes, who will kill anyone entering with fear in their heart, and a mirror which reveals your true self. This may or may not be something you want to look at.

The book itself fuels a world powered only by the imagination of the reader.  The themes of the story are rooted in adolescent insecurity, and the book acts as a metaphysical reinforcement for the young reader.

 The sets are amazing, particularly the crumbling palace. Themes of destruction of literary dreams and imagination in books are a reference to incidents during the war. The way the whole film is conceived is quite unique. It is likely to never happen again in Cinema due to the industry avoiding subtext or emotional substance in films. This film has a real ethereal intimacy.

There are some intense scenes during the destruction of Fantasia in which the characters, including the child-like-empress of Fantasia looking directly into the camera, which would never be considered by film producers today or anytime soon, especially with the subdued, red-tape, approach applied to new films nowadays.

In 1987 cinema was still evolving and we were testing out new ideas, and ways to convey different messages visually. The film isn't supposed to be close representation of its source novel at all. It is a work of fantasy cinema that has many meanings embedded within its beautiful narrative.

The Addams Family (1991 & 1993)

 This is my costume:  I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else

The Addams Family was one of the best film adaptations of a much-loved TV series to make it to the big screen. It features elaborate costumes and set designs, including the family’s lush Gothic mansion.

A passion project of director Barry Sonnenfeld, it’s a shade more eccentric than its television counterpart, which is quite a feat considering the original show. I saw the original movie in 1991 at the cinema and thought is was great. It really captured the spirit of the television series and brought its colourful characters to life with passion and inspiration.

This re-imagining of ‘The Addams Family, based on the classic television series, doesn’t take itself seriously, and it’s particularly freewheeling even for a comedy. Despite it being aimed at a younger audience, it has highbrow adult humour hidden away. The production design and costumes are sublime and the attention to detail is something missing in many modern film, especially comedy, which is a flawed contemporary cinematic genre, in my opinion.

How often does the modern comedy genre really give you something to appreciate in terms of set and costume design?

True, there are still many great stylish comedies being released, and the genre itself has produced many stylish and inspired works, especially in America during the 1940's and 1950's, but it is debatable if it is a  genre that predominantly tends to overlook style in favour of cheap laughs, especially in its current form as of 2019.

The story is deliberately loose as a way of levelling out against the eccentric and wild set design and story. A more complex story would have been at odds with the surroundings so to speak.

A sequel followed in 1993 – ‘Addams Family Values’ – which is just as good, but it sadly moves away from their Gothic retreat to an all-American summer camp for a substantial portion of the film.

Nothing in these films has been done on the cheap. You can see a lot of money has been used in both. I’m very sceptical with today’s movie budgets. They supposedly have large figures, but I can’t see it on the screen. I feel most of these costs must go towards the actor’s salaries, insurance, location costs etc, and not so much on what we are seeing on the screen.

RETURN TO OZ

Return to Oz holds a 58% rotten score on rotten tomatoes, and only made half its budget back at the U.S box office which is great shame. The film was directed and created by celebrated film editor Walter Murch. This film bears all the hallmarks of someone having a lot of creative control on a project (even if it was hard fought), which in my opinion is regularly absent in today’s cinema.

All about the ticket sales

When you’ve watched a lot of films, you start noticing all the tell-tale signs, such as the studios forcing production teams to create something more digestible for mass consumption, thus enhancing their ticket sales. The reason this oversight is an issue is because it takes what should be an organic process and turns into something resembling a tin on a production line. That’s fine for food (is it?) but cinema is an art form, so any creative development is evaporated when the initial vision is hampered for the sake of investors who only care about the return.

 A good film will find its audience, regardless of box office receipts, and low and behold ‘Return to Oz’ became a cult film. I’m sure it’s made its money back by now. The story is based on some of the other Oz stories, ‘The Marvellous Land of Oz’ and ‘Ozma of Oz’. The story goes, Dorothy Gayle returns to Oz 6 months after her first adventure only to find a lot has changed since she left and things have taken an even darker turn. The opening scenes, when we discover the Cowardly Lion and the Tin-Man have turned to stone and the Emerald City is in ruins, are quite unsettling. It’s an exceptionally well-designed scene, and the cinematography captures a cold and desolate atmosphere.

The film doesn’t patronise the young audience it may be aimed at, and is a powerful film for people of all ages.

TO CONCLUDE

I was motivated to write this blog concerning family films due to a concern that creative control seems to be evaporating these days. The visions conceived in mind or on paper are being so filtered out that we’re getting cinema that’s not only ticking all the boxes, it’s creating them.

There’s no right or wrong in a film doing something you don’t like or don’t agree with. That’s where we can allow ourselves to draw our own conclusions. If there’s nothing to question, or think about in the film, why make the film at all?

I believe all these films should be appreciated by adults, just as much as younger audiences, so don’t allow yourself to be defined by the types of films you watch.

Yes, some films are structured for younger audiences, but if there’s nothing to appreciate from an older perspective then it’s probably not worth watching in the first place. 

After all, the best films speak to all audiences young, and old.