Just watched...

...the stunningly beautiful "Coco" by Pixar. Because of my busy life, I rarely get to the theatre to see films (there are exceptions such as the current Vivienne Westwood documentary "Westwood: Punk, Icon, Activist" previously here which was a wonderful peek into her life) so thankfully there is cable and Netflix! I am always running to catch up on my "To See" list of films and episodic shows. And I am so glad I saw this most recent Pixar offering--clearly Pixar can do no wrong. They have been on a decades-long winning streak, producing quality animated feature films that are visually but also mentally and emotionally engaging.

Regular readers know that I love the Mexican celebration of Día de los Muertos (previously here), and I always observe it here on my blog, but also in real life. I create an ofrenda in my home, and I am lucky enough to live near San Francisco which is home to the largest Día de los Muertos celebration outside of Mexico (a street parade with drumming and dancing attracts thousands of people who dress up in traditional skull face paint and costumes while nearby Garfield Park is home to many altars honoring the lives of friends and family members...some altars invite people to participate by adding photos of lost loved ones). It has been a part of my life for so long that I forget there are places in the United States--and the rest of the world--who have not been lucky enough to be near a Latin culture and who have not experienced the sense of what Día de los Muertos is.

If you are not familiar with it, Día de los Muertos (it is actually a three-day observation: October 31st, the first day, is for people who died by their own hand, the next day is November 1st and is reserved for the observation and celebration of the short lives of children who died, and the final day, November 2nd is the widely observed, main feast day) is a joyous, upbeat holiday originating in Mexico but now widely celebrated here in the United States. It is a day to celebrate and remember ancestors and departed loved ones. Altars are created in homes that feature pictures of dead loved ones along with favorite objects and food they liked when they were alive (called ofrenda or offerings), decorated sugar skulls, imagery of skeletons and calacas (a figure of a skull or a skeleton), colorful paper cut-outs, candles, and copious amounts of marigolds.

Families go to cemeteries to tend to family plots, gravesides, and tombs. There is a carnival-like atmosphere in Mexico as huge crowds descend upon cemeteries on November 2nd to hold all night vigils and cook food not only for themselves but also for the spirits of the departed who can visit this earthly realm one night a year. Old women sit in chairs by the graves while children run and play tag, musicians play and sing, and people sit and talk with family members, both living and dead. It is not a morbid or spooky celebration at all but a colorful, exciting, joyous time filled with love and life despite being about death. Each culture has its own way of viewing and responding to death. Our Western culture in the United States does not deal well with either the reality or even the concept of death...it makes most of us uncomfortable, nervous, scared...for so many reasons. It is something that is kept away from and apart from us despite being another phase of life itself. So we do everyone a disservice by not being able to participate in it: it is a disservice to the ones who are dying, the ones who are left, and to ourselves. Keeping thoughts and feelings away during a time of such cosmic transition creates a split, a schism, one that makes accepting the death of a loved one even more difficult.

So kudos to Pixar on many levels: for taking on a project that portrays death and grief not as something dark and heavy but as light and joyous; for taking on a project that portrays a culture that is, considering the Monster-in-chief and his current administration, very hostile to Latin cultures; and for taking on a project portraying a differing culture at all in a day and age where the accusation of "cultural appropriation" can fly at any moment for the slightest, perceived infraction (there actually was a bump in the road during production when, in 2013 when the original title of the film was "Día de los Muertos," Disney tried to copyright the phrase but was met with a backlash...and I agree that was a step too far and apparently so did Disney as they withdrew the application and said the name of the film would be changing). The makers of this film spent a few years researching the topic, and the culture, making trips to Mexico to visit many actual Día de los Muertos celebraations to get at the true essence of it all. And their take-away was: family. When it is all boiled down, the connection that holds it all together is family. Our ancestors, those who came before, whether related by blood or not. Those who touched our lives and who are not here anymore. So we honor them and continue to love them by placing their photo on the altar and remembering them in a way that would have pleased them: with love.

No spoilers: In a little village somewhere in Mexico, a little boy, Miguel, is born into a family of shoe makers. Music is forbidden in this family and we soon discover why: his great great grandfather left his family to become a singer and musician, one of the most famous in all of Mexican history. For that abandonment, the idea of music itself is punished since it is seen as an evil force that would make a man leave his family forever. But poor Miguel LOVES music, CRAVES music, and wants to PLAY music. This conflict is the crux of our story and what propels Miguel to suddenly, by a strange confluence of occurrences, cross over into the Land of the Dead on the only night such a thing is possible: Día de los Muertos of course. He meets his ancestors but also makes some new friends along the way on his quest to become a musician but also to return to the Land of the Living before he is trapped on the other side forever.

First, I have to say how gorgeous and SUMPTUOUS this film is, a true feast for the eyes. It reminds me so much of the first times I came into contact with Día de los Muertos celebrations, how brightly colored it all is, a riot of color really and the overwhelming orange background for everything that comes from the ever-present marigolds. The ofrendas are exquisitely rendered. Well, in fact, the entire film is rendered beautifully: some of the backgrounds--hillsides, villages--are totally convincing. CG has come a long way in a short period of time, and we are now capable of creating images that duplicate reality. I find it cute however that the characters of such films, including our characters at hand, are still deliberately made to look like cartoons with sweetly exaggerated faces. But the real treat here is the look of the ones who populate the Land of the Dead: they are all designed to look like the kind of decorated and embellished skeletons and skulls seen during Día de los Muertos. Their faces are wonderfully scribed with florals and curlicues and dots.

And since music is such a huge part of the story, we are treated to mariachi music, some new songs in an old style, and some excellent voices including Anthony Gonzalez as our hero Miguel and Allana Ubach as Mama Imelda.

Recommend? Yes, especially if you are unfamiliar with Día de los Muertos and the culture around it!

https://movies.disney.com/coco

Animated Halloween 2016

I grew up watching cartoons like "Scooby-Doo" on Saturday mornings...

Just watched...

..."The Jungle Book," Disney's remake of their cartoon adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's books. Directed by John Favreau.

I barely recall seeing the animated 1967 version of "The Jungle Book" when it came out. I was around four years old and Poppy, my name for my great uncle, took me to the theater where I promptly fell asleep on his lap. Ya know, when you're four, that happens...but I certainly know the characters and songs from the show. It is part of the general popular culture. So when an actual live version of "The Jungle Book"--well, live with computer graphics--was announced, it seemed to be a good idea. And as it turns out, it is a splendid idea.

Computer graphics or CG have come light years in a short period of time. CG characters in the past tended to feel oddly floaty--their movements were annoyingly delayed, human faces tended to look alternately doughy or stiff, and the physics of how an actual person or body moves was slightly off (and it can still be that way...before "Jungle Book," I saw a trailer for Spielberg's newest film "The BFG" and while it might be a cute film, the giant looks all wrong). But the computer graphics of all the main animals in "The Jungle Book" are literally breathtaking. There are a few background animals that have that floaty sense to them, but all the leads are simply gorgeous: rendered completely realistically with each hair, each eye, each paw, each hindquarter looking real. I was quite unexpectedly moved at seeing animals who look so realistic speak English and behave in such human ways. I adore anything with fur and seeing Mowgli with his wolf mother, father, and brothers was, for me, very poignant and touching, taking me out of the story somewhat, making me think of the reality of animals and the reality of their world... I think the creators of this version of "The Jungle Book" probably had this poignancy in mind while filming. But I can't imagine they meant to take me out of the story the way I was...which I fully acknowledge has everything to do with me and not the film.

And it is this near-perfect realism and ravishing production design (the different locations from open veldt to lush jungle are all beautifully dream-like) that made me notice some schisms. First, I think it is an odd choice to include two of the musical numbers from the 1967 animated version, "Bare Necessities" sung by Baloo the Bear (voiced with lovely and amusing restraint by Bill Murray) and "I Wan'na Be Like You (The Monkey Song)" sung by King Louis (voiced by Christopher Walken). It's one thing to hear these songs in the 1967 animated musical context, and to see them sung by cartoon characters but they have absolutely nothing to do with the realism the current film strives so hard to create. The 1967 version was a musical, so I have no quibble with that but this version is not a musical and to see and hear these magnificently rendered creatures break into a Dixieland Jazz song is beyond incongruous. Especially when there is no Dixieland Jazz anywhere else. (Since we are being asked to believe in the veracity of the setting, it begs the question, "How did Dixieland Jazz get to the deepest, darkest jungles of India about 40 years before its invention to begin with?")

The second thing I noticed goes a little deeper and probably beyond the control of the filmmakers, and that is that, with a close-up portrayal of these completely realistic animals and their individual societies, cultures, packs, and relationships, the difference between animal and man was at once large and small. It's always been assumed that Kipling's "Jungle Book" stories were and are thinly veiled social and political critiques. But more immediately, they function as allegories and fables. And in any allegory or fable, an animal almost always has human characteristics. In this way, an author, whether Aesop or Kipling, can make wry, pointed, pithy comments about human nature without addressing any real human beings. It is easier to accept our foibles and flaws when they are pointed out in an indirect way. But again, because of the precision and exactitude with which the animals are presented in this most recent "Jungle Book," I saw the human-like characteristics of the animals as incompatible with how the writers of this version wanted things to be: animals are wary of man, told to stay away from man villages, and that man is destructive, and hunts for sport. Yet Shere Khan the tiger (voiced here by Idris Elba) is a jealous, vindictive murderer. And Louis is a sadistic ego-driven rage-aholic. Some might accuse me of overthinking it, but I was really struck by the disparity of the nature-documentary quality of the animals and the human ego quality of their behavior. Aside from some primates who have been seen committing murder, and perhaps Orcas who we know do kill for the fun of it, the animal kingdom is gracefully ego-free. "It's a dog-eat-dog world" we say. "It's a jungle out there" we say. But generally, the only time real animals kill is for food, or to protect themselves or their young from becoming food. On a deep level, it was disappointing for my psyche to feel that these lovely animals were behaving just like the worst aspects of human beings--I mourned that fact. And I know that if the CG rendering team had not made them so spectacularly life-like, I would not have had that feeling.

But I do not want to leave you feeling that I disliked the film overall. Certainly not. It's a visual splendor and the pace is perfect for an adventure story. Also of note is the wonderfully fine performance of newcomer Neel Sethi as Mowgli. To think that this eleven year old boy spent many weeks acting all by himself on a green screen set (probably along with some motion capture actors) and came up with such a charming, sensitive, varied performance is extremely impressive.
Recommend? Yes.

http://movies.disney.com/the-jungle-book-2016

Just watched...

..."Pixar's "Inside Out."

I've loved Pixar films ever since I saw the truly delightful "Monsters Inc." and it seems they can do no wrong. Each time they release a new animated film, I raise an eyebrow and wonder, "Hmmm, that seems like a shaky premise...it could turn out to be a typical schlocky kid's film." But then I see said film, whether it is "Finding Nemo," "WALL-E," or "Up," and I am swept up and enchanted in a story that manages to be both light and poignant, both for children and adults, both silly and bittersweet. I mean, the first ten minutes of "Up" and "WALL-E" contain more humor and love and meaning than some entire Hollywood films.

So it was a similar story with "Inside Out," a story that, on the surface, appeared more for tween girls. But on the recommendation of a friend who has demonstrated a capacity for a certain understanding of the world that overlaps with mine, I saw it. And indeed, it is delightful.

It is actually a very effective treatise on and study of psychological processes of the developing brain...disguised as a children's film. The animation and the sparkly effects make it fun and visually stimulating but the ramifications of the story are, at the risk of sounding silly, rather profound.

Once again, we have an intro in this film that manages to convey the contents of an entire complete story...but that is just the start. We watch the birth of a little girl, Riley, and see her grow up for 11 years. She and her parents live in Minnesota where Riley plays hockey with her mom and dad and her friends. But we get a special view of Riley that no one else does: we see inside her head where the personifications of all her emotions interact. Joy, Anger, Fear, Sadness, and Disgust all add their own viewpoint to Riley's world and her interactions with those around her. Director Pete Docter and his production team consulted Paul Ekman, a well-known psychologist who studies emotions, and Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley to understand more fully the function, role, and methodology of our emotions and our psyches.

As one can imagine, the emotional interior landscape of a child is generally fairly straight forward. But when Riley's father takes a job on the West Coast which takes them to San Francisco, Riley misses her friends, her hockey team, and her old life. This change is a spring board for watching the world view of a child grow, become more complicated, become richer. Of course the poignancy comes from the inevitable loss of innocence, and the loss of "pure" emotions...something that any adult with a sliver of self-awareness can identify with. The results of this growth might no longer be so pure but the trade off for a more extensive and deeper emotional life is worth it.

Aside from this grown-up trip down memory lane and examination of how we all got to where we are now, psychologically speaking, the film functions as a nice way to give children a way to think about their emotions. It provides them with visual symbols that allow them to possibly understand their internal processes, which, even for adults, can sometimes be overwhelming and mysterious. The underlying message that it is acceptable--and even necessary--for all of our emotions to act in concert and not to be afraid of that is a beautiful thing.

Recommend? YES.

http://www.pixar.com/features_films/Inside-Out

Just watched...

...Disney's adaptation of the Sondheim musical "Into The Woods."

I am not a big fan of musicals. At all. I hope I never, ever hear any song from "The Music Man" or "The Sound of Music" again as long as I live, and I swear, if I ever have to sit through another production of "Oliver," someone is going to have to pay, and pay dearly. BUT, my one caveat is the work of Stephen Sondheim. His work far outshines and surpasses anything that a musical was or aspired to be previously to his "Sweeney Todd," "Sunday In The Park With George" (which won a mere PULITZER for gods' sake), and "Into The Woods."

Like so many of his works, "Into The Woods" uses a subject as a jumping off point for issues much deeper than those seen on the surface. The stage version of "Into The Woods" takes act one to tell--or re-tell in a wry fashion--fairy tales from our common cultural storehouse (although he did invent one, the story of the childless baker and his wife, and threw it into the mix). Act two is what happens after the end of the tale(s) as we know it. Much like Anne Sexton's book of re-examined and sequel-filled poems of fairy tales, TRANSFORMATIONS, act two of the show portrays the characters from the tales in a not-so-happily-ever-after situation. I mean, who would want to just marry the prince and be done with it? Wouldn't there be some kind of longing, some kind of yearning for something...something...authentic, genuine...something more personal, more alive? And what about what you sacrificed to attain your dream?

But on a deeper level, the show is about truth, perception, childhood, innocence, and above all, the lies that we tell children and the repercussions those lies can have ("Careful the things you say, children will listen"). And thankfully, Disney did not water down this sense of "Into The Woods." How could they? The songs are integral and the ultimate meaning cannot be changed without coming outright and changing the entire story itself. Meryl Streep, who can do no wrong, is just lovely as The Witch, bringing not only the proper spookiness but also a necessary poignant sadness to the role. Emily Blunt and English comedian James Corden are wonderful as The Baker and His Wife, Lilla Crawford kicks ass as Little Red Riding Hood (what a voice!), and Johnny Depp is adequate in the small role as The Wolf. Oh, and it turns out that Chris Pine is not only gorgeous but can also do comedy and sing. Alrighty then. Unfortunately, and this could just be me, Anna Kendrick as Cinderella was a tad underwhelming, and I can't put my finger on it. I perceive a certain kind of petulant, contemporary Valley Girl-ness in her and it was not suited to the role.

The visuals are fine, art direction spot on, and the music is largely in tact--a few songs are truncated and another few make their appearance as background music while characters basically talk quickly through whatever was in the song...and I understand these decisions in the interest of time.

Recommend? Oh yes, and I don't think you have to be a fan of musicals or Sondheim to enjoy it. But it helps.

http://movies.disney.com/into-the-woods/

Pyotr, Walt, and Lana

When I was a child, I had a vinyl record made by Tale Spinners (released through United Artists) of the story of Sleeping Beauty. It featured the voices of talented English actors Denise Bryer, Tony Church, and John Wood, who added a weight and often a sober sense of reality. But most importantly, it featured Tchaikovsky's "Sleeping Beauty" score for the ballet of the same name, played by a pick-up group called The Hollywood Studio Orchestra. The orchestral music was a beautiful, atmospheric addition to the spoken word story, and served to further introduce me to a historical and cultural landscape that helped shape my young mind and soul. (Incidentally, I still have this record!)

Listen to the grand, dramatic "Sleeping Beauty" waltz from Tchaikovsky's suite. By turns lush, romantic, and stately, the piece wove its way throughout my story...

For the 1959 animated film "Sleeping Beauty" by Walt Disney for Disney Studios, the Tchaikovsky waltz was transformed into a song called "Once Upon A Dream," sung by Mary Costa as Princess Aurora and Bill Shirley as Prince Philip. Listen for the same melody...

And now, we come to my point: when I saw this year's Disney live action film "Maleficent" in which we see the Sleeping Beauty story told from the point of view of the "evil fairy" Maleficent, as beautifully and subtly played by Angelina Jolie (who could have chewed scenery since it is based on a cartoon), I heard during the closing credits, a chilling, haunting version of "Once Upon A Dream" by Lana Del Rey which gives a whole new sense to the story; I got goosebumps when I recognized what it was. It brings a wonderful darkness that speaks to the darkness inherent in every fairy tale. And it brings some import to a very grey story, as opposed to the black and white/good and evil approach to the 1959 film.

Season's Greetings from Mickey and Walt, 1930

Just watched...

…two films that I would normally not watch, yet I feel compelled to write about them.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, when one is stuck inside a small Mid-west home with relatives, and with not much to do, sometimes a film on television is a nice distraction (if one’s mother-in-law will stop talking long enough for the dialogue to be heard). That is how I came to watch “Mr. Holland’s Opus” with Richard Dreyfuss. As I said, this is not a film that I would normally be attracted to. It was released in 1995 and I had managed to avoid it all these years, but alas, it was on, and there I was. And I must say that I was a little surprised. It seemed like something one would roll one’s eyes at on the Hallmark Channel, and although there is a definite “Hallmark Channel”-ness to it all, it does have some sweet moments.

For those, like me, who have never seen it, we follow Glenn Holland (Richard Dreyfuss), musician/ teacher/ composer through the ups and downs of his life. His first day of teaching music in high school does not go well, but he develops a passion for it and for bringing music to the lives of his kids. He and his wife have a son who, to the dismay of Glenn, turns out to be deaf. Deprived of sharing his passion for music with his son, Glenn keeps their relationship at arm’s length. Yes, I know, this all sounds VERY “Hallmark”-y, but as the years passed, and as the characters grew (up or old, depending), I ended up being drawn in. Mixed in with a predictable story line are some poignant and genuine events and emotions. The way children can be inspired by teachers, and the special bond that can develop between a student and a mentor is lovingly depicted in this film. Mostly, I found “Mr. Holland’s Opus” to be an inspirational ode to teachers, those people who are not paid enough to tackle a job that very few feel called to pursue. And I thought of a few people and very special teachers in my own life who may have started out as teachers but ended up as dear friends, to this very day. Being shown immense possibilities and a world of culture by these most special people helped make me who I am today. As I watched his students’ tribute to Mr. Holland, I thought of my very own Mr. Hollands: thank you forever to Odette, Anne, Betty, and Harvey… I love you all.

Recommend? Yes, I think so.

The second of the two films I would normally never see, I saw on the airplane coming back home to Northern California. Being trapped on a plane is another place where one might as well try to make the time go faster by watching whatever is being shown. And on the flight west, they were showing a more recent film from 2012, “The Odd Life Of Timothy Green.”

Based on a concept by Ahmet Zappa and starring Jennifer Garner, Joel Edgerton, and CJ Adams, this film is another film that seems like it would be right at home on the Hallmark Channel (it was made by Disney after all), but unlike “Mr. Holland’s Opus” which deals with real life situations and disappointments, “Timothy Green” is an absolute fable, a fairy tale, perhaps even an updated version of a folk tale. When Cindy and Jim Green (Garner and Edgerton) find out they cannot have children of their own, they try to come to terms with the emotionally devastating news by conducting a very personal ritual, the kind that seems like it would come from Jungian psychology: after heartache and some wine, they imagine the son they will never have and memorialize his qualities and life events with pencil on slips of notebook paper which they gather and put into a small wooden box. That night, they bury the box in the garden behind their house, but a suspicious freak storm arises, and after the ground has been watered, a charming and muddy ten-year old boy shows up in their home (played with stunning maturity and beautiful sensitivity by CJ Adams), referring to Jim and Cindy as mom and dad. They actually put two and two together, unlike so many dense film characters, and understand that this is the magical manifestation of their imaginary child.

The story from here on is perhaps a tad predictable, but the tone of the film is gentle, unhurried, and slightly surreal. This is because the film also possesses a kind of metaphysical charm, since it aligns itself with the aforementioned fairy tale template. Think of Gepetto carving a son out of wood, and wanting with all his heart for Pinocchio to be real. Think of Greek myths where Baucis and Philemon turn into an oak and linden tree respectively, or Daphne turns into a laurel tree. Think of fairy tales where plants have magical properties like a beanstalk that grows to the clouds. This type of symbiotic and mystical relationship between man and plant has been around for centuries. Witness the Wiccan Green Man which shows up in many other unrelated cultures. So, of course since Timothy is from the natural world, he possesses a certain innocence coupled with a supreme self-realized, calm, and innate knowledge which touches the lives of all those around him. I can forgive the film for being a bit sappy and sentimental since it is clearly presented in a way that does not mistake itself for reality. It turns out to be lyrical, fantastical, and quite touching. Perhaps it touched me so because, as regular readers can tell from recent posts, I just observed the anniversaries of the deaths of both of my parents, who died well before their time, and before they would have wanted to leave. The absolute, unconditional love for their magical son exhibited by both Jim and Cindy Green reminds me so much of the rare, unique unconditional love I felt from my mom and dad. Perhaps it is because I still miss them so much that I found this film to be so tender and vital. It might be a modern fairy tale, but the yearning to nurture, to love, and to connect is genuine and universal. And like so many folk and fairy tales, “The Odd Life of Timothy Green” has a very bittersweet ending. From love and loss comes growth. Something must die for something else to be born.

Recommend? Yes. It has a lovely heart and is certainly worth a view.

http://disney.go.com/the-odd-life-of-timothy-green/

BEAUTY: Art--For Halloween

Even more art for Halloween...

Skull faces by Laurie J. Proud

The Death of Capitalism by Chang Park

Activation III by James Flames

Death and Life by Gustav Klimt

Leaf 6 by Lorenzo Duran

from "The Skeleton Dance," a 1929 "Silly Symphony" short by Disney

http://www.lauriejproud.com/
http://illoz.com/changpark/
http://www.jamesflames.com/
http://www.naturayarte.es/

BEAUTY: Illustration--Eurydyka Kata and Rafał Szczawiński

Graphic artists Eurydyka Kata and Rafał Szczawiński of re: studios have created some amazing, minimalist images representing a variety of cultural and pop cultural phenomena. By using just a few key images, they are able to conjure artists, television shows, and films.

First, their iconic artists series tickles me. It is wonderful to recognize an artist, and his life and work by a few little visual hints. (Answers at bottom.)

Their images for recent television shows are pretty fun too. (Answers at bottom.)

And finally, here is their simple take on a few Disney classics.

(Answers: Artists = Pollock, Warhol, Mondrian, Van Gogh, Magritte, David; TV shows = "Mad Men," "House MD," "Lost")

http://redesignstudio.pl/
http://reramble.wordpress.com/