weregonnaneedabiggerblog-blog1

[weregonnaneedabiggerblog-blog1]

South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut (1999); The “TV Show: The Movie” that Pushed its Source Material into the Future

There was a time where “TV Show: The Movie” movies had broken into the mainstream, and not always for the better. Starting around 1998 with the release of “Rugrats: The Movie”, which went on to become the first Non-Disney animated movie to gross over $1,000,000, company executives and Hollywood producers alike took note and suddenly a big-budgeted wild fire tore through the vast forest that was television; “Recess: School’s Out”, “Hey Arnold! The Movie”, a trilogy of Pokémon movies, “The PowerPuff Girls Movie”, “The Wild Thornberry Movie”, “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, even the most obscure cartoons of the time like Disney ‘s “Teacher’s Pet” took a try at becoming the next box-office phenomenon. From 1998 – 2004 alone, 15 movies were produced based on television cartoons, almost all of which were just clear cash-grabs to capitalise not only on the brand’s popularity, but the success of "Rugrats: The Movie", and most often, the quality reflected the profit. Whilst a majority of them did make back their budget and then some, barely any were competing with the numbers shown by the Rugrats a few years prior.

  I feel that was because audiences quickly grew accepting of what the quality of the majority of these films would be; just nothing more than a feature length episode of the show that didn’t take any advantage of what the film medium could offer. Regardless however, at this time, “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, not being one to not just aboard an opportunity to cause a ruckus in the media, took it upon themselves to bring their ever-so controversial cartoon about the residents of a small Colorado town with a vast catalogue of bad language to the big screen.

  In 1999, the two released into cinema what I still believe to be one of the boldest and most important steps the South Park series had to take in order to be where it lies today; By taking everything that worked about the show, and using every advantage the film medium could give to make one of the most simultaneously funny, vulgar, offensive and yet smart animated films ever made.

  After their favourite Canadian TV starts Terrance and Philip release their feature film debut “Asses of Fire”, young South Park residents Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny (all voiced by Stone and Parker) become fixated with the movie’s offensive language, with the starts often referring to each other as “Pig Fucker” or “Uncle Fucker” When this language interferes with the boys’ lives, primarily when Cartmans tells his teacher to “suck my balls” or when Kenny kills himself trying to set his fart on fire like Terrance and Philip do in the movie, the parents of the town start a protest group which starts as an attempt to get the film banned in the United States, that very quickly spirals out of control and leaves Kyle’s mom arresting the controversial duo and becoming President Clinton’s Secretary of Offence as the country declares war on Canada. With only two days before Terrence and Philip are executed, the children of South Park quickly scramble to find of a way to show their parents that they’ve got too far, whilst their deceased friend Kenny also tries to warn them of how the day of Terrance and Philip’s death was prophesised by Satan himself to be the day he returns to bring 1000 years of darkness unto the Earth.

  As you may have been able to gather from that plot summary alone, there are a lot of views and themes going on throughout this movie’s short 76 minute runtime (a length I personally believe plays well into the “Bigger, Longer & Uncut” subtitle of the movie. Aside from the obvious circumcision joke) Perhaps the film’s biggest statement is not-only ironic but contradictory method the children’s parents have in tacking “Asses of Fire” and its obscene content. Rather than taking more interest in what their children can and can’t watch for example, they instead feel the need to put the blame not only on the creators of the movie, but their country of origin instead (perhaps also a metaphor for the blame people put on a country rather than just those responsible. This film did release a year after the 1998 United States Embassy Bombings and does feature a deceased Saddam Hussein as Satan’s emotionally abusive lover after all). These parents getting radical over obscene language could also clearly stem from the controversy “South Park” itself was facing at the time with parental groups during its original 3 season airing, back when the show’s animation was the cardboard cut-out equivalent to an early 2000s flash animation on Newgrounds.com. This point is very interesting to me as not only does it act as Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s “meditation” so-to-speak about all the attention they had created for their show, but it also marks them doing it in a much more mature way

  At least, as mature as a show like South Park can be.

  Rather than have the victims of their cynicism be wild, screaming idiots like the earlier seasons of the shows often portrayed them as (still to a funny extent, mind you.), the movie often portray the antagonists, such as Kyle’s mom, as being so self-sure that they are completely blind to the true consequences of their actions. A perfect example of which is seen in the musical number “Blame Canada”, which has a chorus consisting of the protesting, parents chanting:

  “Blame Canada

  Blame Canada

  We need to form a full assault

  Its Canada’s fault!”

  That’s another thing I failed to mention. This film is a straight up comedy-musical. Decades before they showed many their talent at catchy musical writing with their Broadway show “The Book of Mormon”, Matt Stone and Trey Parker wrote a grand total of ten original songs, preforming almost all of them as well, for a South Park movie of all things. Regardless, almost every song on the soundtrack is hilarious and ridiculously catchy, with some of my personal favourites being the before mentioned “Blame Canada”, as well as Terrance and Philip’s lead single in the movie “Uncle Fucka”, Principal Teacher Mr. Mackey’s lesson on alternatives to swearing “It’s Easy, M’kay” and Satan’s solo number “Up There”, which hilariously is the only original song on the soundtrack to have no swearing despite it being performed by the prince of darkness himself.

  Despite the before mentioned accolades, there are a few gripes I have with the movie that keep it from being the almost perfect movie I feel it so desperately wanted to be. For one thing, the entire “Satan will rule the Earth upon T&P’s death” subplot only really added up to Satan standing up to Saddam and his emotional abuse he gave (again, something pretty funny for the prince of darkness to endure), and that school teacher Mr. Garrison’s hand puppet, Mr. Hat, replaces Saddam.

In fact, almost the entirety of the ending does feel very rushed.

On the night of Terrance and Philip’s broadcasted electrocution, complete with a pre-show performance by South Park resident Big Gay Al, the kids with the assistance of a small French child known as “Ze Mole”, whose accent and extreme hatred for God make him one of South Park’s best one-off characters, attempt to save the Canadian comedians, only for an ambush by the Canadian Army and a resulting firefight to result in their death, unleashing Satan, Saddam and all of Hell onto the Earth. In almost no time at all, Satan realises how Saddam has used him and casts him back to the fires of Hell, calling off his attack in the process (Oh, and Kenny’s face is finally revealed. Surprise! He looks just like all the other characters in the show except with blond hair) Sheila and the parents realise how they went too far and all is forgiven as the town reprises the opening song. All of which take place in the span of 5 – 10 minutes. Whether this was due to Stone and Parker not having any more funny material, wanting the film to conclude with the same cheeriness of the opening (hence the reprise) or just simply not knowing how else to end it aside from, well, ending it.

  Regardless of an ending that could have done much more than what it did I fell, the rest of this movie is almost flawless. Some may complain about the crude, cardboard cut-out artstyle and the resulting stiffness of movement, but honestly, I think it just adds so much more the film’s crudeness. Aside from that, almost every single joke, from the recurring gags from the show to what is newly presented, had me having at very least a snort and at most uncontrollable laughter. All of which is captured by the amazingly funny music and solid performances, even from the most unlikely of celebrity cameos, such as George Clooney as the doctor trying to save Kenny’s life. This film, like the show, is definitely an acquired taste. If you’re willing to possibly have your beliefs mocked however, you just may find something in this almost perfect TV-to-movie adaptation.

[weregonnaneedabiggerblog-blog1]

Logan (2017); The Gritty Grounded Superhero Movie that Got It Right

Consumption of media has always had a set of phases that I’ve recently noticed;

  ·         Aspect of life gains much mainstream attention and is promoted and viewed greatly by the masses

·         The aspect is consumed to such extents that people will become tired of the concept, meaning companies will either choose to abandon the aspect and promote something else, or try and reinvent it to try and give it more relevance.

  And it’s not just companies that do this. General people with a fascination of art will eventually drive for the norm to evolve into something other, as was seen in the post-modernism movement of the mid-20th century that lead to the current group of society that relish in pushing the boundaries of what our expectations for certain parts of culture.

  I, and many others also in their late teens by this point in their lives, have grown up with the rise of the self-proclaimed “subgenre” of the superhero movie, self-proclaimed mainly due to the fact that the only real guidelines the genre has is that it must feature larger-than-life beings protecting someone or something. In this time, films like Sam Rami’s “Spider-man”, Jon Favrau’s “Iron Man” and Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers” have acted as landmarks for what I believe to be the first phase of the superhero movie consumptions; its peak. Now that it’s the year 2017 and that this collection of movies have been indulged by the masses for almost 20 years now, I believe we’re about to enter the second phase of this consumption; the evolution, with the movie “Logan” action as its beginning.

  Now many would argue that this isn’t the first time that a superhero movie has tried to break the mould of what is expected, with films like “Watchmen” from 2009 and “The Dark Knight” from 2008. However, I would argue with this for one main reason, and that is these films were too early in the lifecycle of this consumption. The same year The Dark Knight was release, we got Iron Man, the film as I mentioned earlier, marked a big part in phase 1 of this consumption as it was the film to start the Marvel Cinematic Universe; a never before seen collection of characters spanning across dozens of stories and movies. I like to think of perhaps the most major landmark in this consumption being with Bryan Singer’s “X-Men” in 2000, due to being a primarily big movie for its time acting as a superhero movie with a lot of talented actors and filmmakers being attached to the product, including of course Hugh Jackman and his now iconic role as Super-Soldier Mutant Wolverine, also known as Logan. And after all these years of staying with these movies and staying with this character after being there at the beginning, I find it only fitting that Jackman, and more importantly the character of Logan’s swan song act as the jumping-off point for the future, experimental phase of the superhero genre.

  No-where better does Logan address its objective than in its own title. This is by absolutely no-means a glossy, over-blown superhero epic that acts as if every single one of its actions could mean the difference between the end of the world and saving it. Rather this is a down-and-dirty look at Logan and how everything in the hundreds of years he’s been alive have led to this point in his life. This isn’t Wolverine’s movie, it’s Logan’s. This is seen in subtle call-backs to previous movies, such as when Logan speaks to Charles Xavier about how there hasn’t been a mutant child born in years, leaving Logan to think of his entire sub-species as “God’s mistake”, undercutting almost everything Logan and the X-men fought for in terms of Mutant civil rights in past adventures. On top of that, near the film’s conclusion, we learn that Logan himself has been carrying with him an adamantium bullet, the only thing in the world that can kill hum, in case he ever felt he couldn’t take the train on him anymore. Logan is attempted to be persuaded otherwise from his bleak outlook on life by Charles Xavier, no-longer acting as the head teacher at his school for you mutants, but now acting as the only real reason Logan is still living, given the several medical conditions he has obtained in his later years such as dementia and stroke-prone, something very dangerous with the powers that Xavier possesses. As Logan, as Charles puts it, “Waits for him to die”, he is given problems in the form of X-23, a genetically bread super-soldier with the nickname of Laura. As Logan is begrudgingly forced into escorting her away from her creators and former captives, due to him discovering her to be a genetic clone of himself and therefore his daughter in some-sense, Xavier tries to show Logan the good still left in the world as they help Laura to her destination, eventually spending a night with some local farmers whose horses the trio helped round up. However, this only leads into more death, as another clone of Logan attacks the house and brutally murders the residents, including Xavier himself, who gets no final words, and the following scene is buried by Logan and Laura before they move on. This acts as a prime example of the bleak, but never forced, tone of the movie, with all of these actions showing the mental pain Logan endures due to all the lives he’s lost and is responsible for loosing (some of which are implied to have included other X-men). And keeping with the non-conventional superhero structure, the film doesn’t have some big ridiculous ending where the villain is in full power and the hero must use what they’ve learned to defeat them, rather ending with Logan sacrificing himself so Laura and her fellow mutants escape from their creators. Whether he chose to do this due to some sense of obligation to Xavier or due to him actually feeling some sort of fatherly instinct to protect Laura, it still acts as an incredibly sad yet heroic farewell to the legacy of Logan.

  Much of the technicality also makes this film excellent. Hugh Jackman, as expected, gives a marvellous final performance, as does Sir Patrick Stewart as sometimes-kind hearted sometimes-bitter elder to the group that adds a great amount of leverage to the film, helping in being able to care from and sympathise with these people, regardless whether you grew up with or have experienced any of the other x-men movies. The relatively unknown Dafne Keen, portraying the young mutant Laura, also gives what is possibly one of the best child performances of the year, always having a sense of unknowing of what she’s thinking, primarily due to her major lack of dialogue for a majority of the runtime, instead having a very cold expression to a majority of what happens around her. As well as this, the primary dry, dusty scenery of the Texan-Mexican border setting is also surprisingly powerful, and almost gives the movie a road-trip-esc feeling with the stops the main trio make, from casino hotels to abandoned lookout-posts. This execution is likely in no small part due to director James Mangold’s experience with his remake of western “3:10 to Yuma” (also returning from directing 2013’s “The Wolverine”, which hinted greatly at his greater understanding and love for the character, despite falling that film falling short in many areas). Those mistakes however are likely circumvented with his greater involvement with this movie, being also credited as co-writing the screenplay with Scott Frank, a returning writer from “The Wolverine” who also helped with penning Spielberg’s 2002 effort “Minority Report”, another film with an excellent sense of incoming danger.

  Many years ago, the genre of the Western was also in a state of popularity that the Superhero sub-genre is currently flourishing. However, the genre sadly never chose to evolve into anything more and eventually burnt itself out, leaving us with a genre that, whilst helping to inspire the scope and scale of films to come, only has one film every few years now. I feel that where superhero films differ is that it has proven itself many times already to evolve and become more, and hopefully if my predictions comes true, then this final nail in Logan’s coffin will also act as the final nail in the era of nothing-but-formulaic, filler superhero adventures, and the birth of something bigger than the character himself could ever be.

[weregonnaneedabiggerblog-blog1]

The Perfect Way to Watch a Movie

I often wonder if the way I’m watching this movie is the right way to do so:

  If I’m in the theatre and I have to go to the toilet, did I miss an important scene?

If someone talks during an important plot point, have I truly experienced the movie by missing out on that moment?

If someone walks past the screen, has the effort these filmmakers have made to immerse me in that world been shattered? Is it my fault or the guy that got in my way? Should I be focusing on that or the revelation that Johnny was the guy that ratted them out the whole time?

Do I have too much on my mind at-the-moment to fully immerse myself in the first place?

Am I seeing this at the right age? Should I wait till I’ve at least went through secondary school or should I have seen this when I was seven? But I wasn’t seven years old when “Minions” came out, so am I missing the nuance details in the script the filmmakers put in exclusively for a child’s mind to spot? Probably not, no.

  In many respects, there is more than likely a key calculated perfect way to experience a movie of a certain length, target audience and genre. But honestly, that’s just bringing structure into art. And who the hell wants that?

  Movies can be a fun, mass-appealing piece of harmless entertainment; something the whole family can enjoy. But at the same time, they can be on the further side of that pole; acting as captures of what imagination we humans may have with our differing life experiences, and how that makes us view the world. Movies aren’t supposed to be one thing; they weren’t created to be as easily analysed as this essay title would suggest they should be, and that’s often the main issue when the masses try to interpret the idea of the film medium as-a-whole. Often if we feel this movie didn’t fit our requirement of entertainment, then it’s a failure. It’s a bad movie. A majority of the mainstream movie consumers would agree with that notion. Others on-the-other-hand feel that movies should be something else; something that inspires us or makes us question our world. And the main issue of interpretation is when people want a film to just be one extreme or another. To say all movies should be mindless nonsense with no character development, themes or messages is the equivalent of wishing for a movie that is nothing but moving colours, and to say films should have no entertainment value and only be serious analyses of the human condition is, again, bringing structure into art. Movies can and should be able to be entertaining. Movies should also have depth. And when the planets align every now-and-again, we get that special movie that can appeal to both the mindless drones and the pretentious dickheads.

 But what makes movies so special, like music, is variety; variety in stories, setting, characters, cast, filmmakers, camera angles, set design, costumes, music etc. And whether these elements come together to form something explorative or adventurous, it still is artistic. The ability to empathise with a fictional character portrayed by a real human being is one of the greatest achievements of an artistic vision, with their worlds and ours only being blocked by a projector or TV screen.

 The state of connection movies bring out of us is also an amazing achievement. When I sit down in a theatre, about 90% of the people there I either don’t know and/or never will know. But when we all sit there, there is a true communal experience occurring; we laugh at the guy screwing up his first date due to his awkwardness and we later sit and sympathise with him as he wonders if he will be forever alone. And it’s that mixture of entertainment and commitment to a character that makes the idea of a movie being one thing and not another totally pointless. 

Back on topic however, I’m saddened to go on movie news websites and to read how the popularity of more expensive, private movie theatres with 4D rumbling chairs that let you hold your 3 course meal are being seen as a just alternative to just sitting down in your theatre seat and trying to enjoy what is put infront of you. Although, maybe that’s how you would prefer to experience the new Star Wars’ space battle as your rocked violently in your seat, or maybe the idea of communally watching a movie bothers you; the fact that the guy next to you I constantly text with notifications turned on. Maybe you hate the restraint of not being able to pause this 3 ½ epic to go and check if your mum’s messaged you back about it being okay to stay out at the pub an extra hour past your beddy-byes. Why not hear valid criticism as the guy in the back row boos at an unprecedented turn-of-events. Why don’t enjoy the bellowing laughter as the audience watches Will Ferrell mistake the glass door for being not there. Why have other people interrupt your immersion, the way you want it?

There is no right or wrong way to interpret a movie or even experiencing said movie for that matter. Do you watch this movie now on opening weekend with a packed audience, or do you watch it a few years from now on Netflix? The 1939 adaptation of “The Wizard of Oz” is often cited as the most viewed and most popular movie of all time, but I didn’t experience it during the pre-WWII tensions of its era, I watched it one Christmas in the mid-2000s and still found enjoyment out of it. I never experienced the context in which that movie was released. Maybe it was better than I didn’t, and just enjoyed the movie on its own merits. Over the years, several movies like “The Big Lebowski” and “The Iron Giant” have become more popular after the context of their release, and are still beloved despite the lack of such context as to why this was made at that time. At-the-same time, there are countless superhero movies being released at-the-moment that have context to release in the current popularity and resulting saturation of that sub-genre.

In conclusion, perhaps there is no non-scientific, white-knuckled calculation of the perfect way to experience a movie, just like there’s no perfect way to interpret a movie. Someone interpreting Fantastic Mr Fox as the weakest of Wes Anderson’s filmography is no more subjective than me choosing to view Ghostbusters on Blu Ray over VHS. The title of this essay is intentional; it’s to show how there is no perfect way to experience a film, or how to even get into movies in the first place, it’s something that occurs. Someone telling you how to experience art is someone who doesn’t understand art; someone who thinks everything in life should be broken down, sterilized and simplified, until we’re no different than the mindless drones in Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis”

Attempting to watch every perfect movie ever made is an impossible feat I recently realised I will never accomplish, so to me I feel I need to be open to as much cinema now and in the future as possible. After all, I live in the era of blockbusters, and box office seats sell out fast these days.