For Bug's first movie we decided on Frozen. It got generally good reviews from both the critics and other parents. I had also heard enough about it to believe that it wasn't the standard Disney princess movie where the hero and true love save the day. I'm not reflexively opposed to traditional fairy tale based princess movies, but I also like subverting tradition when possible.
Despite a rocky beginning, the outing was a success.
It turned out that the screening we went to was in 3D, so Bug was a little thrown by the glasses. Some of the previews were a little intense for her as well. The worst trailers, for a little kid, were for Maleficent and How to Train Your Dragon. How to Train Your Dragon was rough because, Bug saw the nice holiday special, so had happy feeling towards it. After the initial intro to the trailer, things get a little scary.
Frozen was excellent. There are a few heavy moments, but nothing truly scary. The music is great. The animation is luscious. The 3D effects were the smoothest I have seen. I do think that the movie is just as good without them; the 3D doesn't add anything. Bug stayed quite through the entire movie. She moved into the aisle a few times to get a better view of the screen. After the movie, she went home and asked to watch the trailers again. When asked what her favorite part of the movie was, she replied "the music."
Most of the story went over her head, which is to be expected given that she is under four. For us, or for a child old enough to follow it, the story is great. It balances serious and humor well. The tension is modulated well for the audience. You get that big things are being dealt with, but there are very few scares. The best thing about the story, for me, is its subversiveness. In many ways, it plays like the standard princess fairy tale with slight updates to make the princess more spunky ala Tangled. Then the plot turns and it is no longer in traditional fairy tale land.
The pre-movie feature, featuring classic Disney characters, is also top notch. To be most effective, it does require 3D, but it is a fun use of the technology.
Showing posts with label classics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classics. Show all posts
Jan 21, 2014
Oct 5, 2010
The Count of Monte Christo
Reading the Count of Monte Christo was an epic undertaking. My recollection of reading it in high school was that it was a pretty quick read. Either we read an abridged version, or I took way more drugs than I thought in high school. It is a long book, but it is mostly worth it.
I won't lie and say that it is gripping throughout or that Dumas' editor shouldn't have made him cut the length in half. It drags in places and the length allows the plot to get overly convoluted. For instance, the section of the book that takes place in Rome could have been cut by a third at least. The whole subplot about Villefort's wife could also have been cut as well as Calderous.
Of course, these are critiques based on modern sensibilities. When Dumas was writing, his book was in line with what the audience wanted. It was a soap opera for the time. The lush descriptions, the excess of characters, the purple prose were not meant for us over hurried, TVfied, post Hemingway readers.
Fortunately, the book is loaded with archetypes. There is the greedy banker, the ambitious public servant, the noble warrior who must be tested, the noble vengeance, the rebirth, and the hero journey. It moves from happiness to darkness and back to happiness just like a good movie.
Along the way the audience learns a lesson about the follies of greed, ambition, and revenge. Of course, revenge, when justified, is justice and the agent is an instrument of good.
Did I find the book good? Yes. Is it a masterpiece? No. It was entertainment for the masses of its day, and is still a serviceable distraction for today's masses.
I won't lie and say that it is gripping throughout or that Dumas' editor shouldn't have made him cut the length in half. It drags in places and the length allows the plot to get overly convoluted. For instance, the section of the book that takes place in Rome could have been cut by a third at least. The whole subplot about Villefort's wife could also have been cut as well as Calderous.
Of course, these are critiques based on modern sensibilities. When Dumas was writing, his book was in line with what the audience wanted. It was a soap opera for the time. The lush descriptions, the excess of characters, the purple prose were not meant for us over hurried, TVfied, post Hemingway readers.
Fortunately, the book is loaded with archetypes. There is the greedy banker, the ambitious public servant, the noble warrior who must be tested, the noble vengeance, the rebirth, and the hero journey. It moves from happiness to darkness and back to happiness just like a good movie.
Along the way the audience learns a lesson about the follies of greed, ambition, and revenge. Of course, revenge, when justified, is justice and the agent is an instrument of good.
Did I find the book good? Yes. Is it a masterpiece? No. It was entertainment for the masses of its day, and is still a serviceable distraction for today's masses.
Jun 23, 2010
Alice in Wonderland
This is another of those books that I would have sworn I read years ago. As it turns out, I had never read the actual book. The characters and title are so widely used throughout our culture, it is hard to know what is the real deal and what is just borrowed.
A lot of what I thought I knew about Alice and Wonderland is made up. The actual Alice in Wonderland is both more and less than the added mythology. The plot is less than the myth, but the characters are deeper. Alice is much more like a real little girl. She is precocious and rude and impatient, but tries very hard to be nice. Her struggles to make sense of the craziness reminded me of how hard it can be to figure out real life.
The rest of Wonderland is just as well drawn as Alice. It is a masterful piece of literature and a masterful children's story.
A lot of what I thought I knew about Alice and Wonderland is made up. The actual Alice in Wonderland is both more and less than the added mythology. The plot is less than the myth, but the characters are deeper. Alice is much more like a real little girl. She is precocious and rude and impatient, but tries very hard to be nice. Her struggles to make sense of the craziness reminded me of how hard it can be to figure out real life.
The rest of Wonderland is just as well drawn as Alice. It is a masterful piece of literature and a masterful children's story.
Jun 6, 2010
The Portrait of Dorian Gray
"The Portrait of Dorian Gray" is one of those books I would have sworn that I'd read in high school. I knew the outlines of the story so well that it was unthinkable that I hadn't read it. So when I wanted a book to test out iBooks, I decided to read it. It was free and I figured I could concentrate on the experience of reading on the iPad and not the book.
It turns out that I had never actually read the book. I had the outlines of the story down, but the specifics were strange to me. On the surface it is a pretty lame story. Not much actually happens. It is easy to see why movie makers often attempt to make it more fantastic and adventurous.
It is easy to see why they often fail to make it into a good movie. As with many books, the real value is in the text not the plot. I found the discussions of art, philosophy, and morals to be the meat of the book.
Dorian is not simply vain. He is a hedonist. He falls prey to Sir Henry's treatise that art and life is all about experience. Reflection and morality are for philistines. One shouldn't dwell on the outcomes.
The portrait, which was created out of a deep emotional connection between artist and subject, allows Dorian to lead a perfectly hedonistic life. He does not suffer the ill effects of experiencing life to it's fullest. He does not need to care about the effects he has on others. It just rolls off of him like a water off of a duck. The portrait absorbs the cost.
The author's position on hedonism is clearly negative. Dorian, while making the most of his fortune, is clearly disturbed by what he has become. He is both enthralled and repelled by hedonism. Sadly, he is trapped by it.
There is some truth to the philosophy that one should not dwell to much on what has passed and on what my be. One should focus on the present and he experience of the now. The Buddha is regarded as one of the wisest men. The difference is that hedonism also disavows being concerned with the plight of others. Dorian destroys people without regard as he lives his life in the present. The Buddha was careful to consider the suffering of others and worked to relieve it.
The path of living in the present must be tempered with concern for your effects on the world around you. Experience life without desire or regret, but also don't increase the suffering of others. Karma is a bitch.
It turns out that I had never actually read the book. I had the outlines of the story down, but the specifics were strange to me. On the surface it is a pretty lame story. Not much actually happens. It is easy to see why movie makers often attempt to make it more fantastic and adventurous.
It is easy to see why they often fail to make it into a good movie. As with many books, the real value is in the text not the plot. I found the discussions of art, philosophy, and morals to be the meat of the book.
Dorian is not simply vain. He is a hedonist. He falls prey to Sir Henry's treatise that art and life is all about experience. Reflection and morality are for philistines. One shouldn't dwell on the outcomes.
The portrait, which was created out of a deep emotional connection between artist and subject, allows Dorian to lead a perfectly hedonistic life. He does not suffer the ill effects of experiencing life to it's fullest. He does not need to care about the effects he has on others. It just rolls off of him like a water off of a duck. The portrait absorbs the cost.
The author's position on hedonism is clearly negative. Dorian, while making the most of his fortune, is clearly disturbed by what he has become. He is both enthralled and repelled by hedonism. Sadly, he is trapped by it.
There is some truth to the philosophy that one should not dwell to much on what has passed and on what my be. One should focus on the present and he experience of the now. The Buddha is regarded as one of the wisest men. The difference is that hedonism also disavows being concerned with the plight of others. Dorian destroys people without regard as he lives his life in the present. The Buddha was careful to consider the suffering of others and worked to relieve it.
The path of living in the present must be tempered with concern for your effects on the world around you. Experience life without desire or regret, but also don't increase the suffering of others. Karma is a bitch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)