Yesterday

[mothwing]

Yesterday was pretty much the perfect day. Perfect. I had asked Crocky whether she'd like to see What the Butler Saw with me, and so she came along and spent the day with me in Hamburg, which is always a good foundation of a perfect day.

At first, I went to see one of my examiners, the didactics one, who is just generally wonderful and awesome and who chatted to me about my final paper and was very interested in my topic. I love her. Then, I picked up two Scheine, which I was very pleased with, as well.



Since by then it was only around 3pm, there was a lot of time to kill until 7.30pm. Thus, we went to see Hancock, which I had unwisely not read any reviews of and which I was exited about because it features a Will Smith as a superhero.


Why I Did Not Like Hancock In Spite of Will

After three quarters of an hour, feeling vaguely self-conscious and nerdy for doing so, I leant across to Crocky and told her I was wondering whether this movie is actually worse from a gender perspective or a race perspective only to find out that she'd been trying to make up her mind about that, too.

Of course now some people will roll their eyes and marvel how she and I can even be bothered to care enough about such things to let them interfere with watching a good movie, and rest assured that I really wouldn't have, had there been a decent enough movie to watch. Now, it's not as bad as The Happening, which had me wondering and thankful for watching it, because it may actually be the absolutely worst movie I have ever had the privilege of seeing, but just generally... sort of... wrong on several levels.

The only good things were probably the special-effects and the mere fact that it has a black superhero! As a main character! As the title role! Which was awesome.

Not so awesome was pretty much everything else.

The blatant, really unnecessary nationalism, which was probably only to be expected of a movie that opened on the fourth of July - and still I think that the film could have afforded to lose a few eagles, especially the random real eagle that made a WTF-inspiring appearance in the closing scenes.

The way the hero had to be told to adjust to the role of the tradintional, white superhero to be accepted by society, guided by a wise, well-adjusted white mentor figure and with the vulnerable white, blonde woman as the ultimate prize at the end. How- in spite of her freaking super powers- said white, blond woman's purpose was to be saved by the male hero, for heaven's sake. How this is also a movie about a poverty-stricken, aggressive alcoholic being polished up for society by the nice upper-class, white family.
How the backstory stayed lame and vague and was only introduced in the last part of the film, making a rushed appearance.

How, in spite of Hancock, there was just one other black character, who was of course a male news presenter, and a few criminals without lines, and no black women at all. This especially made Hancock not only "the only of his kind" as a superhero, but also the only of his kind as a black character, which is sad, as the film was promising.

So, I did not really like it. I still love watching Will Smith, but the first black superhero could really have deserved a different context in my eyes.

We then went and watched the University Player's performance of Joe Orton's What the Butler Saw, which was very, very enjoyable.
Even though I know that some people had had their doubts about the effectiveness of having the characters played by cross-dressing characters of the opposite sex, that made the play all the more enjoyable to watch for me.
The skill of the actors and the professionalism of the production once again made me marvel at the skill of the people involved.

As always.

Comments

[krakelwok.livejournal.com]

I guess Hancock could have worked if they had tackled it like a real comedy. When halfway through the trailer I noticed they were actually making this into a superhero/comedy/social drama mess, I lost interest.
Speaking of main roles and ethnicity, next year will be "fun" when Disney's The Frog Princess hits theatres.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the mix is not easily tolerable, and the one thing which makes it worse is that it's not even a mix, but more like three different set-ups which sort of succeed each other in the movie, first it's a comedy, THEN it's this social-commentary-homo-in-the-valley-thing, THEN it's a weird love triangle... and so on. By the end, it's really not sure what it is anymore, but I don't suppose anyone cares, because there is a huge, red heart engraved on the moon, and that sort of overshadows everything else.

I have to admit that I haven't even heard anything of that yet. Fun how? Although I really wouldn't be surprised if Disney stay true to their infuriating tendencies in that one, too.

[krakelwok.livejournal.com]

Oh, you know, public interest groups and all that. The Frog Princess will be Disney's first African-American main role in an animated feature and you can bet the nitpickers will be all over that. In fact, they already are because the main character's name is supposed to be 'Maddie' which in connection with the scenario and cast bears certain connotations into which veiled racism could be interpreted.

I say 'could' because, well - animation and political correctness have a perverse relationship.
Animation is capable of racism, propaganda and stereotyping, no doubt, but what the medium is primarily about is caricature and satire. One of the best-known classic cartoons by legendary animation director Bob Clampett is Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs, for example, which these days is banned from the airwaves due to its heavily caricatured depiction of black stereotypes. It's still recognised as one of the best cartoons of all times, though, because it should be clear to anyone with some common sense that it's a work of pure satire and no work of anti-black hate mongering. However, you can't always be so sure. Take Disney. There are characters in the old movies, like the crows in Dumbo or King Louie in Jungle Book, which are clearly influenced by black stereotypes - and in many Disney movies those characters are depicted as happy-go-lucky layabouts, moochers and loiterers.
So on the one hand you might say that animation must be allowed to play with stereotypes - it is not a depiction of true life, it's a distortion of stereotypes with which in real life we all run around. By throwing those into sharp relief we find those faults in ourselves.
On the other hand animation, especially Disney animation, caters to audiences which may not be capable of the intellectual subtlety required to spot satire. Considering how sensitive certain interest groups are when it comes to political correctness, where to draw the line?

Disney and gender, well, that's another problem. I deeply disapprove of their Disney Princesses brand - not just because it enforces stereotypes but also because it limits the scope of what modern animation entertainment is capable of. There are way to many shows these days aimed at stereotypical girl audiences - highschool girl adventures about fashion and boyfriends, horsies, magical fairies and princesses, all cheaply produced, bland and flawed stuff that stifles all creativity. It's not just bad for young girls growing up thinking this kind of cheap glamour is the greatest thing a girl can achieve in life, it's bad for everyone. Going through toy shops today, I see those stupid doll faces grinning their insipid grins from boxes everywhere. There is art in animation and art is better than this sort of commercialism.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

It could be much, much worse (http://top-reviews.co.uk/design/assets/images/bratz.jpg), though.

So... the Frog Princess... is basically an adaptation of what I think is an originally Russian fairy tale which is now set in Louisiana?
Hm. I'm glad that there'll be an African American Disney Princess, because it's odd that they've been strangely excluded from the productions for so long and because I know people who will appreciate the change. However, Disney princesses are all incredibly bland and do more harm than good, even/especially bookworm!Belle who taught young girls in several dozen countries that it's ok to stay with a choleric monster because of the handsomeblondshinyrich inner prince, puke.

I don't really know whether the "Maddie"-concern is justified. It sounds... strange, but then, I don't know the particular history of that name. I do remember that a character in one of Angela Gibb's short stories was randomly called "Mandy" by her white driving teacher who wanted to be condescending, to make clear what he thought of her (basically telling her that he thought she was an uneducated, lascivious country girl), so they might have a point.

As for the "certain interest groups" with which I tend to sympathise because I like to err on the side of caution - I don't know. My up-bringing causes racial/gender stereotyping in humour to make my PC senses tingle and make them rather distasteful for me, too. Also, I have only a laywoman's overview over animated movies and related matters, but given the audiences that Disney movies seem to be intended for I don't really see what is wrong with drawing the line early, even if that means losing shows that the brighter parts of the audience would readily recognise as a satire.
Even though there will always be more enlightened viewers who realise when something is drawing attention TO the stereotype and stereotyping, there will probably also always be a large number of people who take the opportunity to bask in their racist sentiments freely, seeing them affirmed and reinforced rather than questioned and ridiculed, easily ignoring the satire.
Also, there are also always the people who pretend to create "satires", and use the term to veil their thinly disguised prejudices. In those cases especially, I really don't mind if their art is not widely available, as racism is never a good thing, not even if it's disguised and trying to be funny.

I realise that political correctness makes a certain type of satire difficult, but somehow, I doubt that is such a bad thing. I usually find it hard to see what the immediate use of employing racial and gender stereotypes actually is, too - too often, it only seems to cater the humour of the privileged group and reinforce the low status of the stereotyped group rather than offer an opportunity to become aware of stereotypes, which is the object of the exercise, I understand.
This might be, though, because I've seen the wrong movies.

An example for such a wrong <strike>movie</strike> TV show might be <i>Türkisch für Anfänger</i>, which was hailed as a huge step forward for the German-Turkish relationship because it was supposed to display stereotypical views of both Germans AND of Turkish people - and which failed, obviously, because it is much easier to display a stereotypical view of a Turkish family in Germany than it is to display one of a German family. Even though this series was apparently meant to offer both sides a chance to laugh at themselves and each other and realise mutual misconceptions, the laughs nearly always were on the Turkish family, and I just don't see the benefits of offering a privileged group yet another chance to laugh at a minority instead of at the stereotype.

Disney and gender - that's a huge can of worms. There is so much wrong there it's really not funny any more, and the fervour with which the girls at the Kindergarten where I did my internship worshipped the ridiculous cardboard females was terrifying. Equality is not one of Disney's concerns, has never been, will never be, the same goes for Pixar, unfortunately.

[krakelwok.livejournal.com]

Almost all mainstream animation is hypocritical about relationships and tolerance. Take the original Shrek - for almost ninety minutes we're treated to messages about acceptance and seeing beyond the exterior only to have the princess turn into a monster at the end to make her visually more 'compatible' with the hero. What a stupid reversal of the very formula Shrek pretended to go against! If Fiona had stayed human and pretty and still married the ugly guy, that would have been something different. No, it always has to be 'to each their own'.

Like most ideas Political Correctness is a good concept. However, interest groups these days are not just after idealism, they're after money, too. That's where the whole affair drifts into pretension. One of my favourite anecdotes is this:
In 1997, Oddworld Inhabitants, an American studio, released a video game starring the alien Abe. The goal of the game was to help Abe and his brethren escape the exploitation from another alien race. As soon as their game was released in Japan, Japanese interest groups threatened to sue Oddworld Inhabitants. Why? Like many other cartoon characters, Abe had four fingers. This posed a "problem" because in Japan missing fingers are a sign of belonging to a certain group of people way down on the social ladder. Alluding to their social conditions, even if the allusion isn't wanton, is regarded as an insult. Oddworld Inahbitants was given the choice to either pay a hefty fine (Disney does this every year, by the way, to placate the interest groups) or alter Abe's appearance. They opted for the latter, stating they wouldn't play an interest group's game that pretends something is politically incorrect to their national consciousness unless they are paid a lot of money.
So that's the problem as far as animation is concerned: as a creator, however good your intentions may be, you will always tread on somebody's toes and there will always be people who will like what you do for the wrong reasons. Sadly, there will also always be people who will seek profit from a fabricated misdemeanours. That's why I ask, where to draw the line?
I don't like Coal Black an de Sebben Dwarfs a whole lot but that doesn't have everything to do with it making fun of black stereotypes. (On the other hand, many say nobody complains that bald, fat, incompetent Elmer Fudd or short, ill-tempered, trigger-happy Yosemite Sam throw a poor light on white people.) Personally, I love Warner Bros. World War II anti-Nazi Germany cartoons which are sometimes extremely funny. As a German I've never had a problem with them because I can 'rank' them historically. Still, nowadays they're considered too offensive and are never shown, not even outside of Germany. Cartoons like that were common practise during the 30s. Disney made them as well; The Führer's Face starring Donald Duck even won an Academy Award.
Political Correctness is right to step in if someone produces offensive material with the sole intention to rub people the wrong way. However, it should not restrict artistic possibilities through sheer paranoia.

[bronnyelsp.livejournal.com]

If Fiona had stayed human and pretty and still married the ugly guy, that would have been something different. No, it always has to be 'to each their own'.

Apparently that was the original concept, would you believe?!

[krakelwok.livejournal.com]

I would. The idea must have been new because in William Steig's original book, Shrek indeed marries an ugly princess. She was ugly to begin with, though, and not someone who used to be pretty and through some cheap plot device turned into a monster. Even that is better than what DreamWorks eventually went with. In my opinion.

[mariebernadette.livejournal.com]

I don't get the "Maddie" connection. Can you expand on that?

[krakelwok.livejournal.com]

I think the movie's supposed to play in French Louisiana where Maddie is supposed to be a lower-class name. The heroine was originally meant to start her adventure as a chambermaid, too, both of which didn't sit too well with whoever decided to bellyache over all this. Oh, and "The Frog Princess" is a no-no as well.
So - Maddie is now called Tiana, she is a princess right away rather than a chambermaid and the movie will be called "The Princess and the Frog" so as to avoid all possible accusations. I expect more to come once more definite information on the plot surfaces.
Personally, I think a lot of this is caving in to paranoia about African-American stereotypes. Whatever her name will be, she wouldn't be the first Disney princess to start her adventure as less than royalty after all. I also think The Frog Princess sounds catchier than The Princess and the Frog - but apparently you can't leave any doubt about the princess not being a frog, or being fixated on frogs or whatever.

[mariebernadette.livejournal.com]

Do you happen to know the era/decade they placed the movie?

Screw it. They should've just called her Princess Oprah.

[krakelwok.livejournal.com]

1920s, they want to jazz it up.
Directors are Musker and Clements. Those two are Disney's fairy tale kings of the 90s but they're white guys. I hope they'll at least make Bruce Smith supervising animator or something, he's one of the most prominent black animators Disney's ever had.

[moonystone.livejournal.com]

Oh. Well, Hancock definitely is off the list of films I might want to see now.

Glad you liked the performance :) I only do the make-up, but I'm still so proud of them whenever someone liked the show. Especially if it's someone whose opinion I respect.

Congratulations on the Scheine! I do hope you don't have too much to do these holidays.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

It's still a movie for a boring evening if it's on telly, though. I just wouldn't recommend seeing it on the big screen.

You know, it's maybe a bit ridiculous, but I felt really proud for knowing you when I saw the performance, which was great. Not that I am an expert, but I loved the make-up, especially the men's, which turned out amazingly well, and Dr Rances. Gosh. That one I really noticed in the scenes with the extreme lighting. We were sitting in the second row, and it made her skin (which probably naturally amazing, though, grrrr, envy) look so incredibly smooth and un-shiny and beautiful - amazing.
Also, the shoes were awesome. Where did you get those ... size 45? shoes? They looked awesome on ... er. Mrs Prentice. He should wear them more often.

Thanks! Well, there are still papers to go, and all the preparation for my thesis.

[moonystone.livejournal.com]

Ah, ok. I won't veto it then if it comes up as possible family-night-in film.

*lol* Lots of people feel that way. Interesting. And I'm always so proud when someone enjoyed it. As if I did anything... anyway, Dr. Rance does her own make-up and does look exceptionally good, even without it.
Oh, the shoes. There are a couple of shoe shops around the Reeperbahn who cater to the more ... male... women *g* I actually got him to wear them at the Derniere party. The bastard can even dance on them!

Good luck!