"SPEED RACER" (2008) Review
When I had first seen the trailer for "SPEED RACER" at my local movie theater years ago . . . I simply cringed in my seat. Granted, I had been a fan of the Japanese cartoon when I was a kid. But looking at that trailer, my mind simply cried, "Hell no!" There was no way in the world I was going to see this movie.
But the more I saw the trailer, old memories of the cartoon kept welling in my thoughts. Soon, I found myself filled with nostalgia for the cartoon. I had eventually decided to go see the movie after all. It might turn out to be a pile of crap, but I had to exorcise the ghosts of my childhood. Well . . . I went ahead and saw the movie. And I must say that it turned out to be a hell of a lot better than I had expected.
At a running time of two hours and fifteen minutes, "SPEED RACER" is about a young 18-year-old American with natural racing instincts. His goal is to become a world-class car racer, in the wake of the tragic death of his older brother, Rex Racer during the Casa Cristo, a cross-country rally. Speed is loyal to the family business, run by his parents - especially Pops, who is a racing car designer. In fact, Pops had designed Speed's car, the Mach 5. The owner of Royalton Industries makes Speed a lucrative offer to join the company's racing team, but Speed rejects the offer, angering the owner. Speed also uncovers a secret that top corporate interests, including Royalton, are fixing races and cheating to gain profit. After Speed denies his offer to join his racing conglomerate, Royalton wants to ensure that Speed will not win any future races. Speed finds support from his parents and his girlfriend Trixie and enters the Casa Cristo Rally in a partnership with his one-time rival, Racer X, in an effort to rescue his family's business and the racing sport itself.
I must admit that when I first saw this movie, the first ten minutes had left me puzzled. Although I enjoyed how the story introduced Speed Racer's obsession with racing and the death of his older brother, Rex Racer; I must admit that I had been taken aback by the movie's visuals. It looked very cartoonish and I have not seen such bold colors since Warren Beatty's 1990 film, "DICK TRACY". But my mind adjusted to this new visual style and proceeded to enjoy the rest of the story. In fact, by the time the movie focused upon The Casa Cristo cross-country race, I found myself marveling over John Gaeta's visual effects and David Tattersall's photography. Quite frankly, I also ended up enjoying Larry and Andy Wachowski's screenplay. "SPEED RACER" must be one of the few movies based upon a cartoon that possessed a strong social message - namely one against corporations' involvement in the sport. And I found it pleasantly surprising.
As for the cast, Emile Hirsch struck me as a little flat at first. But in the scene in which Speed rejected Royalton's offer, Hirsch's Speed Racer finally bloomed into life. Christina Ricci gave a fun and charming performance as Trixie, Speed's girlfriend. Both John Goodman and Susan Sarandon were excellent as Speed's parents. Both were given the opportunities to strut their acting skills in private scenes with Hirsch's Speed. And I do not think that Matthew Fox had never been as sexy and enigmatic as he was as Racer X - Speed's rival and ally in the fight against Royalton. The movie also featured a scene in which both he and Emile Hirsch gave a superb performances in an intense conversation about car racing between the two characters. I especially enjoyed his fight with a ninja assassin. Richard Roundtree gave a surprisingly sly and funny performance as Ben Burns, a former racer who became a commentator. To my surprise, Roger Allam's slightly bombastic performance as the corrupt Royalton did not bother me at all. In fact, his character's over-the-top personality seemed perfect for the movie. The biggest surprise turned out to be Paulie Litt as Spritle, the youngest Racer sibling. Perhaps I should not have been surprised. Regis Philbin once described the young television actor as a 40 year-old in a child's body. Perhaps he is right. But young Paulie was a bundle of energy with great comic timing.
"SPEED RACER" did possess a few imperfections. Either the movie is fifteen minutes too long or its pacing managed to drop off a bit, following the Casa Cristo race sequence. And I was a little annoyed with the Wachowskis' interruption of the fascinating sequence between Speed and Royalton's discussion about the racing scene with comic moments featuring Spritle and his pet monkey, Chin Chin, trying to break into the businessman's candy storage. It just seemed out of place and it nearly ruined the marvelous scene between Speed and Royalton.
Many film critics had disliked the film. I suspect that "SPEED RACER"'s unusual visual style may have been a little too mind blowing for them. Unfortunately, a good number of moviegoers ended up paying attention to those critics. Which is a shame, in my opinion. I feel that "SPEED RACER" is one of the most entertaining films I have seen in 2008 . . . hell, in the past two decade; and one of the most unusual I have seen in a long time. It was a personal disappointment for me when it bombed at the box office. However, there is an ironic post-script to the movie. When it was first released on DVD, those moviegoers who had not bothered to go see it at the theaters, expressed surprised at how much they enjoyed it. I could have told them how enjoyable it was when it first hit the theaters back in May 2008. And now? Over the years, "SPEED RACER" has developed something of a cult following.
"THIS IS A MISTAKE"
I have heard that in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement and the recent protests against police brutality, Disney Parks have decided to change the theme of its Splash Mountain attraction in all of its theme parks. Instead of an attraction based on the 1949 animated film, "SONG OF THE SOUTH" and the Uncle Remus stories by Joel Chandler Harris, Disney Parks has decided to change the attraction’s theme to one based on the 2009 animated film, "THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG". And I believe this is a big mistake.
First of all, why can Disney Parks not consider the idea of maintaining the present theme of Splash Mountain and create a new one based on "THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG"? What is the point of erasing the "SONG OF THE SOUTH" theme from its Splash Mountain attraction? "THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG" theme . . . with a mountain setting? That does not make any sense to me, considering the 2009 movie was set in late 1920s New Orleans and the swamps of Southern Louisiana. "SONG OF THE SOUTH" was set near the region of Stone Mountain, somewhere between Northern and Central Georgia.
If Disney thinks it is being politically correct in the wake of the Black Lives Matters movement, they are mistaken. The Brer Rabbit stories are basically AFRICAN-AMERICAN folklore,which served as a metaphor for the struggles of African-American slaves before and immediately after the Civil War. Three African-Americans on a Georgia plantation had told these stories to Joel Chandler Harris, a white teenager they had befriended during and after the Civil War. Harris had worked for their owner and later, employer. When he later became a journalist and a writer, Harris took those stories and had them published under the "Uncle Remus Tales" title between 1880 and 1907. The character of Uncle Remus served as a metaphor for those three slaves-turned-freedmen, whom Harris had befriended. What Disney Parks is doing is misguided lip service to the Black Lives Matter movement. If Disney Parks really want to pay tribute to the movement, it would maintain Splash Mountain’s original theme and create a new attraction based on "THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG".
Now that I think about it, what is really racist about "SONG OF THE SOUTH"? The Uncle Remus character? The fact that he is a former slave? Or that he was friendly with two white kids? Or that he still lived on a plantation after the Civil War? Uncle Remus was based on the three slaves that Joel Harris had befriended on a plantation. How else does anyone thinks Harris had found out about the Brer Rabbit stories? By eavesdropping on the plantation workers? Are people upset that Uncle Remus had served as a narrator, telling these stories to white kids? I also noticed two other aspects of this situation. The 1946 movie was set during the post-Civil War era. One of the film's main protagonists, a young Georgian white boy named Johnny, who happened to be the son of an Atlanta newspaper journalist in post-Civil War Georgia. Aside from Uncle Remus, Johnny had befriended a poor white girl and the son of a black sharecropper during his family's visit to his grandmother's plantation. The movie has nothing to do with reinforcing the so-called "glories" of the pre-Civil War Old South. None of the live-action characters in "SONG OF THE SOUTH" - including Uncle Remus - or the film's actual plantation setting is featured inside Splash Mountain. So again . . . why does Disney Parks feel it needs to change the attraction’s theme?
The Brer Rabbit stories are metaphors about how generations black Americans had SURVIVED the horrors of American slavery, after they and their ancestors had been dragged to North American and to different parts of the South and forced to work for nothing against their will. Do many people have a problem that comedy was an element in the stories? That is how the original stories were framed. At least "SONG OF THE SOUTH" is actually based on African-American culture or folklore. Despite having an African-American woman as its leading character, "THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG" is not. It is a movie based on "The Frog Princess", a 2002 novel written by E.D. Baker, a white American woman. She had based her novel on who based her story on "The Frog Prince", the 1812 novel written by the Brothers Grimm . . . two white European men.
By replacing the "SONG OF THE SOUTH" theme inside Splash Mountain attraction at the Disney theme parks with one from "THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG", Disney Parks is erasing one theme based on African-American culture and replacing it with one based on European culture. Replacing "THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG" lead character from a white European woman to an African-American woman does not change that fact.
"TRUMBO" (2015) Review
I tried to think of a number of movies about the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and the Hollywood Blacklist I have seen. And to be honest, I can only think of two of which I have never finished and two of which I did. One of those movies I did finish was the 2015 biopic about Hollywood screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo.
Based upon Bruce Alexander Cook's 1977 biography, the movie covered fourteen years of the screenwriter's life - from being subpoenaed to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1947 to 1960, when he was able to openly write movies and receive screen credit after nine to ten years of being blacklisted by the Motion Picture Alliance for the Protection of American Ideals. Due to this time period, it was up to production designer Mark Rickler to visually convey fourteen years in Southern California - from the late 1940s to the early 1960s. I must say that he, along with cinematographer Jim Denault and art directors Lisa Marinaccio and Jesse Rosenthal did an excellent job by taking advantage of the New Orleans locations. That is correct. Certain areas around New Orleans, Louisiana stood for mid-century Los Angeles, California. But the movie also utilized a few locations in Southern California; including a residential house in northeastern Los Angeles, and the famous Roosevelt Hotel in the heart of Hollywood. And thanks to Denault's cinematography, Rickler's production designs not only made director Jay Roach's "Southern California" look colorful, but nearly realistic. But one of my minor joys of "TRUMBO" came from the costume designs. Not only do I admire how designer Daniel Orlandi re-created mid-20th century fashion for the film industry figures in Southern California, as shown in the images below:
I was especially impressed by Orlandi's re-creation of . . . you guessed it! Columnist Hedda Hopper's famous hats, as shown in the following images:
I have read two reviews for "TRUMBO". Both reviewers seemed to like the movie, yet both were not completely impressed by it. I probably liked it a lot more than the two. "TRUMBO" proved to be the second movie I actually paid attention to about the Blacklist. I think it has to do with the movie's presentation. "TRUMBO" seemed to be divided into three acts. The first act introduced the characters and Trumbo's problems with the House Committee on Un-American Activities, leading to his being imprisoned for eleven months on charges of contempt of Congress, for his refusal to answer questions from HUAC. The second act focused on those years in which Trumbo struggled to remain employed as a writer for the low-budget King Brothers Productions, despite being blacklisted by the major studios. And the last act focused upon Trumbo's emergence from the long shadow of the blacklist, thanks to his work on "SPARTACUS" and "EXODUS".
I have only one real complaint about "TRUMBO". Someone once complained that the movie came off as uneven. And I must admit that the reviewermight have a point. I noticed that the film's first act seemed to have a light tone - despite Trumbo's clashes with Hollywood conservatives and HUAC. Even those eleven months he had spent in prison seemed to have an unusual light tone, despite the situation. But once the movie shifted toward Trumbo's struggles trying to stay employed, despite the blacklist, the movie's tone became somewhat bleaker. This was especially apparent in those scenes that featured the screenwriter's clashes with his family over his self-absorbed and strident behavior towards them and his dealings with fellow (and fictional) screenwriter Arlen Hird. But once actor Kirk Douglas and director Otto Preminger expressed interest in ignoring the Blacklist and hiring Trumbo for their respective movies, the movie shifted toward a lighter, almost sugarcoated tone again. Now, there is nothing wrong with a movie shifting from one tone to another in accordance to the script. My problem with these shifts is that they struck me as rather extreme and jarring. There were moments when I found myself wondering if I was watching a movie directed by two different men.
Another problem I had with "TRUMBO" centered around one particular scene that featured Hedda Hopper and MGM studio boss Louis B. Mayer. In this scene, Hopper forces Mayer to fire any of his employees who are suspected Communists, including Trumbo. The columnist did this by bringing up Mayer's Jewish ancestry and status as an immigrant from Eastern Europe. This scene struck me as a blatant copy of one featured in the 1999 HBO movie, "RKO 281". In that movie, Hopper's rival, Louella Parsons (portrayed by Brenda Blethyn) utilized the same method to coerce - you guess it - Mayer (portrayed by David Suchet) to convince other studio bosses to withhold their support of the 1941 movie, "CITIZEN KANE". Perhaps the filmmakers for "TRUMBO" felt that no one would remember the HBO film. I did. Watching that scene made me wonder if I had just witnessed a case of plagiarism. And I felt rather disappointed.
Despite these jarring shifts in tone, I still ended up enjoying "TRUMBO" very much. Instead of making an attempt to cover Dalton Trumbo's life from childhood to death, the movie focused upon a very important part in the screenwriter's life - the period in which his career in Hollywood suffered a major decline, due to his political beliefs. And thanks to Jay Roach's direction and John McNamara's screenplay, the movie did so with a straightforward narrative. Some of the film's critics had complained about its sympathetic portrayal of Trumbo, complaining that the movie had failed to touch upon Trumbo's admiration of the Soviet Union. Personally, what would be the point of that? A lot of American Communists did the same, rather naively and stupidly in my opinion. But considering that this movie mainly focused upon Trumbo's experiences as a blacklisted writer, what would have been the point? Trumbo was not professionally and politically condemned for regarding the Soviet Union as the epitome of Communism at work. He was blacklisted for failing to cooperate with the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Also, the movie did not completely whitewash Trumbo. McNamara's screenplay did not hesitate to condemn how Trumbo's obsession with continuing his profession as a screenwriter had a negative impact upon his relationship with his family - especially his children. It also had a negative impact with his relationship with fellow screenwriter (the fictional) Arlen Hird, who wanted Trumbo to use his work for the King Brothers to express their liberal politics. Trumbo seemed more interested in staying employed and eventually ending the Blacklist. I came away with the feeling that the movie was criticizing the screenwriter for being more interested in regaining his successful Hollywood career than in maintaining his politics.
"TRUMBO" also scared me. The movie scared me in a way that the 2010 movie, "THE CONSPIRATOR" did. It reminded me that I may disagree with the political or social beliefs of another individual; society's power over individuals - whether that society came in the form of a government (national, state or local) or any kind of corporation or business industry - can be a frightening thing to behold. It can be not only frightening, but also corruptive. Watching the U.S. government ignore the constitutional rights of this country's citizens (including Trumbo) via the House Committee on Un-American Activities scared the hell out of me. Watching HUAC coerce and frighten actor Edward G. Robinson into exposing people that he knew as Communists scared me. What frightened me the most is that it can happen again. Especially when I consider how increasingly rigid the world's political climate has become.
I cannot talk about "TRUMBO" without focusing on the performances. Bryan Cranston earned a slew of acting nominations for his portrayal of Dalton Trumbo. I have heard that the screenwriter was known for being a very colorful personality. What is great about Cranston's performance is that he captured this trait of Trumbo's without resorting to hammy acting. Actually, I could say the same about the rest of the cast. Helen Mirren portrayed the movie's villain, Hollywood columnist Hedda Hopper with a charm and charisma that I personally found both subtle and very scary. Diane Lane gave a subtle and very convincing performance as Trumbo's wife Cleo, who not only stood by her husband throughout his travails, but also proved to be strong-willed when his self-absorption threatened to upset the family dynamics. Louis C.K., the comic actor gave a poignant and emotional performance as the fictional and tragic screenwriter, Arden Hird.
Other memorable performances caught my attention as well. Elle Fanning did an excellent job portraying Trumbo's politically passionate daughter, who grew to occasionally resent her father's pre-occupation with maintaining his career. Michael Stuhlbarg did a superb job in conveying the political and emotional trap that legendary actor Edward G. Robinson found himself, thanks to HUAC. Both John Goodman and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje gave colorful and entertaining performances as studio head Frank King and Trumbo's fellow convict Virgil Brooks, respectively. Stephen Root was equally effective as the cautious and occasionally paranoid studio boss, Hymie King. Roger Bart gave an excellent performance as fictional Hollywood producer Buddy Ross, a venal personality who seemed to lack Robinson's sense of guilt for turning his back on the blacklisted Trumbo and other writers. David James Elliot gave a very interesting performance as Hollywood icon John Wayne, conveying the actor's fervent anti-Communist beliefs and willingness to protect Robinson from Hedda Hopper's continuing hostility toward the latter. And in their different ways, both Dean O'Gorman and Christian Berkel gave very entertaining performances as the two men interested in employing Trumbo by the end of the 1950s - Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger.
I noticed that "TRUMBO" managed to garner only acting nominations for the 2015-2016 award season. Considering that the Academy Award tends to nominate at least 10 movies for Best Picture, I found it odd that the organization was willing to nominate the likes of "THE MARTIAN" (an unoriginal, yet entertaining feel-good movie) and "MAD MAX: FURY ROAD" (for which I honestly do not have a high regard) in that category. "TRUMBO" was not perfect. But I do not see why it was ignored for the Best Picture category, if movies like "THE MARTIAN" can be nominated. I think director Jay Roach, screenwriter John McNamara and a cast led by the always talented Bryan Cranston did an excellent job in conveying a poisonous period in both the histories of Hollywood and this country.
