Evolution of Character – Oliver Twist

September 30, 2017 James Humphreys

When we think of the work of the great writer Charles Dickens, what usually strikes our memories are the colorful cast of characters that inhabit his stories. Of these, there are a couple that instantly spring out as the defining Dickensian characters. Ebeneezer Scrooge of course would be one, but the other character that also stands out as the one that instantly comes to mind when discussing Dickens is Oliver Twist. The little orphan boy who dared to ask for “more” has become an iconic character in literature, and the quintessential image of a Victorian era outcast scrapping by on his own in an oppressive, unforgiving world. Naturally, his story is one that has been given attention to by Hollywood, who have continued to mine Dickens’ tale for several generations. What’s interesting about little Oliver’s journey on the big screen is that it actually delves deeper into the character of Oliver than Charles Dickens ever did in his own book. The literary Oliver is purely just a catalyst for Charles Dickens to explore larger themes within Victorian society, including class divisions, squalid inner-city conditions, incompetency and cruelty by social services, and the cut throat nature of the criminal underworld. Oliver is a rather passive character through most of the book; a pawn in a game much larger than himself. And yet, he has proven to be a powerful symbol, representing the often forgotten outcasts of society who face persecution everyday purely because of their placement on the social strata. In cinema, Oliver fulfills that symbolic role too, but is also given the grace of a more rounded personality depending on the film. The interesting about the character and his story is that they can also be reinterpreted in many different ways, like using a different time or place, and still retain it’s primary essence. In this article, I will be looking at 7 of Oliver Twist’s most notable cinematic versions, and seeing how time has changed the character and story of this iconic character.

JACKIE COOGAN from OLIVER TWIST (1922)

Though not the first cinematic outing for young Oliver, this was certainly the first earnest attempt by Hollywood to adapting Dickens novel. For the role of Oliver, young Jackie Coogan, the most famous young actor of the time thanks to his star making turn in Charlie Chaplin’s The Kid (1921), was cast. Coogan’s involvement was natural given how his part in Chaplin’s classic comedy was in some ways inspired by the character of Oliver. Here, Oliver is somewhat limited in character mainly due to the constraints of the silent era, but Coogan does a descent job of filling the part. Bright eyed and broadly mannered, his Oliver is every much the precocious youth that you would imagine him to be for a silent retelling like this one. His best moments are those he shares with the raggedly dressed and decrepit ringleader of thieves, Fagin, here played by none other than the “man with a thousand faces,” Lon Chaney. The film, more or less, is purely another showcase for Cheney to disappear into another character with his groundbreaking make-up and physicality, though it is far from Cheney’s most impressive work. Still, him and Coogan have great chemistry as Fagin and Oliver, and seeing the two play off each other does represent the best subtleties of silent era performances. Coogan’s young orphan Oliver more or less falls into line with Dickens original, becoming a catalyst for the rest of the plot to revolve around, and his innocence is perfectly conveyed in the film. Being only 8 years old at the time of the film’s making, Coogan remarkably already hit a high standard for other child actors to match in the years ahead for the role of Oliver Twist.

JOHN HOWARD DAVIES from OLIVER TWIST (1948)

This post-war British production is often considered by many to be the greatest cinematic version of Oliver Twist ever made, and it’s tough to argue. For one thing, it was directed by the legendary David Lean of Lawrence of Arabia (1962) fame, who in his early career was given the prime opportunity of adapting two classic Dickens novels to the big screen. One was the critically acclaimed Great Expectations (1946), and the other was this 1948 film. You can see the sense of scale and scope that Lean was clearly trying to refine on display here, because this is even today an impressively constructed film. The film also features some standout performances from the cast, all capturing the essence of Dickens’ original visions. Robert Newton brings special menace to the villainous Bill Sykes, and Alec Guinness is almost unrecognizable as Fagin; though his clearly Semitic interpretation of the character is a somewhat troubling reminder of the anti-Semitic leanings of Dickens’ original text. The role of Oliver was played by young newcomer John Howard Davies, who especially fits the portrayal of the iconic orphan. With his puppy dog eyes and sallow face, he looks every bit like what you’d expect an impoverished child in Victorian era London to look like. He certainly has the look of what Dickens wrote down on the page, and that also carries over into his characterization as well. The movie is also a very accurate retelling of the book, covering all the political and social intrigue that surrounds Oliver’s story, and again, it limits Oliver as a passive character in the process. Still, Davies tries his best, and comes away as one of the best versions of the character ever put on screen.

MARK LESTER from OLIVER! (1968)

Apart from the David Lean classic, this is probably the most highly regarded cinematic treatment of Dickens’ story. This big budget, widescreen musical directed by Carol Reed was one of the last of it’s kind from that era of Hollywood, and was the big winner at the Academy Awards, taking away 8 total including Best Picture. As far as musical adaptations go, it’s hit or miss. It’s production values are impressive, and some of the performances are strong, especially Ron Moody as the scene-stealing Fagin. The role of Oliver likewise is a mixed bag. Mark Lester, who plays Oliver, certainly looks the part, and at times performs very well in the film’s dialogue driven scenes. But, because this is a musical and he is the lead, Oliver has to sing and unfortunately that’s beyond young Mark’s range. Pretty much all of the verses sung by Oliver in the movie are dubbed over by another singer; and strangely not by another similar sounding boy either, but by what seems like a grown woman trying to sound boyish. It’s a distracting element in the movie and one that unfortunately casts a shadow over Mark Lester’s decent performance. Since he’s the only dubbed actor too, it also makes him feel out of place, especially compared to the vocally trained Jack Wild as the Artful Dodger, who was carried over from the original theatrical cast. It’s clear that Mark Lester’s innocent doey-eyed look is what won him the role, but it came at a cost to performance overall, because he came ill-equipped to match his co-stars vocally. Still, for an actor as young as he was at the time, it’s still was impressive of him to carry a huge production like this on his shoulders, and it’s often his visage from the “asking for more” scene that we see attached to most visual references to Dickens’ novel.

JOEY LAWRENCE from OLIVER & COMPANY (1988)

It seemed only natural that Disney themselves would approach Dickens’ classic with a musical adaptation of their own. But, in order to distance themselves from the classic 1968 musical, they approached the story in an entirely different angle. Instead of Victorian era London, they set their version in Reagan Era New York City. And instead of orphan children, this version is centered around dogs and cats. Oliver is no longer a child stuck in an oppressive orphanage, but is instead an unwanted kitten forced to survive along on the streets of the big city. Though elements of the story remain the same, it is largely an original tale more inspired by Dickens rather than to the letter faithful. One thing that it does change in an interesting way is the relationship between Oliver and Dodger. Here, Dodger is very much older than Oliver, and acts as more of a father figure than in previous versions. He assumes more of the role that Fagin had in the past, who in this film is relegated to more of a supporting role, being one of the few human characters. A very young Joey Lawrence voices Oliver here, and in many gives Oliver a sense of character little seen before. He’s a very Americanized version of the character; vulnerable, impulsive, and with a strong sense of setting out his own path. He also takes a far more active role in his story, even bearing his claws and fighting back against threats at various points in the movie. The movie doesn’t delve too deep into the more complicated and darker elements of Dickens’ novel (it is Disney after all), but some of the film’s best elements centers around Oliver finding his identity in literal “dog eat dog” world. Though far from Disney’s best, it at least does a decent job of bringing Oliver Twist into the 20th century and giving the classic character much more of an active role.

ALEX TRENCH from OLIVER TWIST (1997)

Disney would once again return to the classic story, only this time without the songs nor the modern setting; and on the small screen no less. This TV movie adaptation, made for ABC’s “Wonderful World of Disney” program, is a modestly constructed retelling of Dickens’ novel, with a TV friendly budgeted portrayal of Victorian England. It more or less plays out like a non-musical version of Oliver!, which has it’s benefits. The film doesn’t get distracted by needless plot points and instead focuses on it’s central characters. Unfortunately, this leads once again to a passive Oliver. Here, he is given too little personality to be memorable, and poor young Alex Trench seems out of his element in the role (this would also be his one and only film role to date). More focus is given to Fagin (played by an over-acting Richard Dreyfus) and to Dodger (played by a pre-Lord of the Rings Elijah Wood), which does provide an interesting character dichotomy to this story that we haven’t seen before. Here we see both characters act as the two opposing points of view guiding Oliver through his development. Dodger is the more outgoing and humane, but he attracts Oliver to a world that is far more unforgiving. Fagin is rigid and suspicious, but putting up more walls helps to shield Oliver from far worse things in the world. For a TV movie, it does give a richer portrayal to these secondary characters, but Oliver isn’t so lucky. It does bring the story back to it’s roots with a modern sensibility that sheds new light on the old story in a positive way, which is something that you rarely see in a network made-for-TV movie.

JOSHUA CLOSE from TWIST (2003)

Oliver Twist would once again see a whole other modern “twist” (pardon the pun), only this time far from the family-friendly Disney version seen in Oliver & Company. Here, we see Dickens story re-imagined with a queer sensibility, with Oliver slipping into the world of street hustling instead of pick-pocketing. This version of Oliver is considerably older, becoming a wayward youth instead of a lost orphan. The film delves deeper into the relationship between him and Dodger, played here by Nick Stahl (Sin City), which adds a romantic level to their friendship; one that ultimately turns toxic as Stahl’s Dodger sinks deeper into a drug addiction. While the new dimension added to the story brings an interesting angle to develop the characters around, the movie sadly doesn’t make it all work in the end. It’s clear that filmmakers used the blueprint of Dickens’ original story to portray their own window into the seedy underbelly of modern slums and the crime world that festers there, but it doesn’t elevate any higher than the surface level of that to become anything really profound; especially not at the level that Charles Dickens would have gone. Fresh-faced, handsome Joshua Close does a decent job portraying this grown up Oliver, and his vulnerable performance is one of the film’s highlights. It’s just too bad a look at a queer themed Oliver Twist had to loose focus and become too indulgent in it’s look at the darker parts of society. The story is after all about a young child seeking an identity in a world that is constantly acting against him. It is interesting to see Dickensian social injustice added onto a queer love story, but the film looses the nerve to make it work the way it should.

BARNEY CLARK from OLIVER TWIST (2005)

Here we have one of the more unexpected adaptation of Dickens’ novel. When you think of all the different filmmakers who would be attracted to the story of Oliver Twist, the last one who would come to mind is Roman Polanski. The Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and Chinatown (1974) director is no stranger to darker themed stories, but for him to take a straight-forward approach to Dickens’ tale was somewhat unexpected. And yet, it makes sense, because if there is a running motif in Polanski’s full body of work, it would be the loss of innocence, which Oliver Twist fits perfectly within. The movie came and went in theaters pretty quietly in 2005, and few people even know that this movie exists, which is too bad because it is probably the best cinematic version of this story since David Lean’s classic in my opinion. I will even say that this has what is probably the best cinematic portrayal of Oliver Twist as a character that we’ve ever seen. Here, Oliver is no longer a passive player in his own story, but rather a fully realized person. The movie does away with all of the political sub-plotting that surrounds the main story, and instead focuses like a laser beam on Oliver’s journey. It builds a far more personal relationship between Oliver and Fagin (played wonderfully by Ben Kingsley) for one thing, where you see the strong effect that the old man has had on Oliver’s upbringing, both positive and negative. Young Barney Clark is also quite good in the role, bringing subtlety and emotion to the character that we’ve rarely seen before. The fact that he has a lot more to do in the story helps to improve the character greatly, and it’s something that should be celebrated more within the whole history of this character. Any Dickens’ fans out there should seek this version out because it is worthy of rediscovery. And for the character of Oliver, it is a milestone, because he finally get the focus that he has long deserved.

So, there you have a look at Oliver Twist’s cinematic journey. As the years have gone on, we see far more of a focus given to the little boy and his personal journey. In a way, he has shone more clearly on the big screen than he ever did on the page. Charles Dickens didn’t exactly treat the young boy as an afterthought in his original book, but it’s clear that Oliver had little impact over his own direction in life. Cinematic versions, which have streamlined the story over time, have found ways to let Oliver stand out more and give him a personality that makes him distinctive and worth taking interest in. My feelings is that David Lean’s classic adaptation made the best attempt at capturing the essence of Dickens’ novel while Roman Polanski’s version brought out the best essence of the character. There are interesting imaginings over the years too, like the two musical version by way of Broadway and Disney, but it’s those two features from wildly different eras that offer the best portrayals of Dickens’ classic. In many ways, Oliver Twist had to mature as a story with more modern sensibilities in order to fully realize the character himself. Nowadays, we are better able to find child actors who can carry the weight of a difficult character, as well as filmmakers who can trust their young stars with deeper material. The story of Oliver Twist is a difficult one to pull off, as it centers around a child in near constant peril and hits hard at the social injustices that have put him in the state that he’s in. That’s a lot to ask a young performer to undertake on screen, but we have thankfully had a fair helping of capable young actors who have done justice to the character. In the end, as we still see young people struggle to survive in the modern world, we find that Oliver Twist remains a powerful literary and cinematic icon who continues to remain more and more relevant through every new retelling.

Movie Reviews

Kingsman: The Golden Circle – Review

September 23, 2017 James Humphreys

Hollywood’s love affair with spy thrillers goes back all the way to it’s early days. Pioneered largely by filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock, espionage and undercover mysteries have given the genre fertile ground to mine for many years. With the onset of World War II, the spy thriller also became an important part of conveying the work being done to gain an intelligence advantage against the enemy to a broad audience. After the war years, spy movies entered a new phase. As the Cold War changed the spy game once again, and turned it more covert and mysterious, the idea of the spy took on more mythic qualities and we began to see the emergence of the “super spy” archetype. No character better exemplified this than James Bond. In his 50-plus years of existence, Bond has become cinema’s most famous spy; an international man of mystery, who wears the finest clothes, drives the fanciest cars, sleeps with the most beautiful women, and has a licence to kill. And while most of the Bond films hold up as great escapist entertainment, some of the movies do slip into the absurd once and a while, and that opens the image of the “super spy” up to ridicule. The genre was most famously lampooned by Mike Myers in his Austin Powers trilogy. With Austin Powers, we saw the genre reexamined through the eyes of generation raised on the myth of the “super spy,” but living in a post-Cold War era, and recognizing the absurdities within. But, with the recent resurgence of the Bond franchise and intelligence gathering becoming more of a priority in a “cyber spy world” the genre needed something to reflect the absurd conventions that have built it up, while at the same time standing on it’s own as an action film.

Thus we got Kingsman: The Secret Service. Based on the comic book series “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar, Kingsman was refreshing departure for the spy genre, mixing the hard edge action of James Bond with the silly, over-the-top absurdness of Austin Powers, with a little John Woo thrown in for good measure. What resulted was one of the best action films of recent memory. Kingsman even managed to stand out in a banner year for spy films in 2015, which also saw the big screen debut of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. from Guy Ritchie, as well as new entries from genre mainstays like Mission: Impossible (Rogue Nation) and even James Bond (Spectre). Directed by Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class, Kick-Ass), the film perfectly mixed all the ingredients of the genre together that stood well on it’s own as both an action thriller and as a comedy. Not only did it deliver some incredibly well choreographed action set pieces, but managed to be laugh out loud hilarious as well. There was something just so perfect about seeing Bond-esque fight scenes performed by what essentially look like stereotypes of stuffy upper-class British aristocrats. They are her majesty’s secret service looking always ready to meet her majesty. And the very archetypal Britishness of the whole thing helped to make the film feel unique and fresh. It was also very self aware of audience expectations and managed flip a lot of genre conventions on it’s head. For one thing, who would have ever expected seeing Oscar-winner Colin Firth in a finely tailored suit slaughtering a whole bunch of redneck thugs in a church with samurai like skills. There was a whole lot to love about Kingman: The Secret Service and it promised us a whole new world worth delving into in an expanded franchise. We didn’t have to wait long as Kingsman: The Golden Circle presents the next chapter in the Kingsman saga. But, is it a mission worth taking or did it self destruct on it’s own?

Kingsman: The Golden Circle picks up not long after the events of The Secret Service. Eggsy (Taron Egerton) has settled into his new role as one of the elite Kingsman, taking over the designated title of Galahad from his deceased mentor Harry Hart (Colin Firth), who was shot in the head in the previous film. While maintaining his new career as an expertly trained spy, Eggsy is also engaged in a loving relationship with Princess Tilde (Hanna Alstrom) of Norway, who would like to see her boyfriend make an even deeper commitment to their love life. While Eggsy is away meeting his girlfriend’s parents, the King and Queen, the Kingsman organization falls prey to a coordinated attack which destroys the entire organization and leaves all members dead, except for Eggsy and the Kingsman’s skilled quartermaster and technician, Merlin (Mark Strong). With nowhere to turn, Eggsy and Merlin seek out their doomsday scenario options, which leads them to a whiskey distillery in Kentucky. There, they discover a secret organization of spies not unlike their own, made up of cowboy styled super agents known as the Statesman. The are welcomed in Statesman Tequila (Channing Tatum) who introduces them to their resident technician Ginger (Halle Berry), as well as their superior Champagne (Jeff Bridges), or Champ for short. Eggsy and Merlin learn from them that their organization was destroyed by a drug syndicate called the Golden Circle, which is run by a nostalgia obsessed kingpin named Poppy (Julianne Moore). Not only that, but Poppy has concocted a master plan to poison the world’s population by lacing her drug supplies with a lethal disease and demanding a ransom for an antidote. Eggsy teams up with another Stateman agent, Whiskey (Pedro Pascal) to get to the bottom of Poppy’s organization and find the antidote before it’s not too late. And to complicate things even more, Eggsy finds another surprise in the Statesman’s lair; an alive but amnesiac Harry Hart.

In many ways, Kingsman: The Golden Circle delivers on everything that a sequel should do. It stays true to what it’s predecessor has set up and continues to expand on the world that it’s built up. But, at the same time, The Golden Circle also falls into the same pitfalls that a lot of other sequels do after the success of their beloved predecessor. The big problem that befalls this film is that it feels more bloated. The first Kingsman was a swift, fast-paced adventure that managed to balance the action and the laughs perfectly. Golden Circle runs for nearly two and a half hours, and unfortunately this longer run time leads to a lot of padding, which spoils some of the momentum. I get the feeling that Matthew Vaughn and his co-writing partner Jane Goldman perhaps had too short a turnaround between features, which led to a script that featured a lot of neat ideas but not enough focus to make them all work. The first film may have had an absurd premise, but it at least kept it focused and cohesive to a point where you could stay engaged. Here, plot points meander from scene to scene, seeming to only be there as a way to glue action set pieces together. That’s not to say that the movie is an unwatchable mess. Vaughn and Goldman still manage to entertain with a lot of clever bits throughout. But, when compared to the first feature, the pieces here feel more undercooked. My take is that the movie could have used a fair bit of editing to smooth out the more unnecessary bloat that hampers the movie; like maybe 20 minutes or so. That way you have less time wasted on Eggsy awkwardly trying to balance his professional and love life (a plot point that goes nowhere) and more time devoted to learning more about the underdeveloped Statesman. The common misconception with sequalizing a new popular film is thinking that more is better, and that filling a movie with more stuff makes it feel more epic. It’s a level of excess that ended up diminishing the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise as well as Transformers, and sadly Kingsman has fallen down that same hole.

What bothered me most about The Golden Circle’s lack of focus is that it doesn’t devote the right amount of time to building up the plot and characters. It almost seems that Vaughn and Goldman spend way too much time building up to punchlines that are not worth the effort. The reason why the humor worked so well in the first movie was because it was so punchy and unexpected. With the sequel, we already know what to expect, but the writers seem too concerned with making things connect that they lost the ability to just let things flow. The movie does have some laugh out loud moments, but they diminish the longer that the movie hangs onto them. There is a cameo by a legendary pop star that starts off funny when we first see him, but as the movie goes on, the cameo turns into a full on supporting role, and by then the novelty has worn off. There’s also the unfortunate aspect of the underwhelming threat that the Kingsman and Statesman face. Julianne Moore’s Poppy is unfortunately a very disappointing antagonist. While she is a great actress, she looks lost in this feature and I think that it’s due to the fact that like most things in the film, her character was not very fleshed out. She’s made up of ideas that could be turned menacing, but end up just being gimmicky. The first film’s villain, played by Samuel L. Jackson, was a perfect blend of how to make character that was both threatening and absurd. Here, Julianne Moore only has the one note to play, and try as she might, it still just remains one note. While I understand that Vaughn and Goldman want to delve deeper into story-lines carried over from the first film, particularly with Eggsy and Harry, it undermines their attempts to expand their world, especially with the Statesman, who sadly are not given the full development that they are due.

One thing that does carry the film, however, is the cast itself. Taron Egerton remains the heart of the series, and he still is enjoyable to watch as the film’s charismatic lead. He even more so is in command of his persona here, and it’s a joy watching him go from sincere, to comical, to fiercely intimidating with great ease. It’s also a pleasure to see Colin Firth brought back into the fold and his resurrection in the film makes some sense (though is a tad convoluted). Firth in particular was born to play this kind of role; suave and sophisticated, but with lethal killer instincts. Before Kingsman, Firth was seen as the quintessential British every-man in Hollywood, excelling in roles ranging from Love, Actually (2003), to A Single Man (2009), to The King’s Speech (2010). Kingsman flipped his already established persona on it’s head, and showed that he was equally adept as an action movie star, without loosing any of his sophisticated appeal. He’s still endlessly entertaining here, and while his presence is kind of unnecessary, since his “death” scene in the first film was such a pivotal motivating factor (which is sadly now diminished), he still manages to remain a hero worth rooting for. The Statesman are sadly given too little time to leave an impact, but they still are welcome additions to the franchise. Jeff Bridges is more or less just playing a version of himself, and that for the most part fits his character well. Channing Tatum uses his brief screen-time effectively, as does Halle Berry, giving a nice reserved performance here. The standout of the Statesman, however, is Pedro Pascal as Whiskey. The former Game of Thrones star steals every scene he is in as the lasso twirling hotshot Statesman, and embodies the fullest aspect of what Matthew Vaughn imagined for the State-side band of super spies. Even if he is portrayed as a stereotypical cowboy, he still has enough charisma to carry it through and as a result he is certainly the highlight of the film’s newcomers. My hope is that if there is ever another chapter given to this franchise, that more emphasis will be given to this second team, and not have them relegated to a sideshow of the franchise’s larger plot.

The other good thing that I’ll say about the film is that while the writing suffers from a lack of focus, Matthew Vaughn’s direction still is just as sharp as ever. Vaughn continues to show his skill behind the camera with well-executed sight gags and kinetically charged action set pieces. In fact, it’s when the movie ends up getting to the action bits that it finally comes alive. There’s a spectacular car chase with a taxi at the beginning that showcases some flashy camera and stunt-work that immediately plunges us right back into the Kingsman’s world. There’s another outstanding action scene with a cable suspended sky cabin, which involves one of the most ridiculous and thrilling escape attempts seen in this series to date. There is unfortunately nothing in this film that quite lives up to the now iconic church massacre from the first movie, where Firth’s Harry takes out an entire congregation of right-wing extremists all by himself. Still, the movie does remain expertly crafted, with action scenes that still are above the average in the industry. There are some very clever visual touches thrown into the movie too. The Statesman’s headquarter’s is a wonderful mix of the rugged and the state-of-the-art mixed together. The villain’s lair is also a nice reworking of a genre cliche. The movie takes the idea of a secret fortress built into a remote hollowed out mountain (popularly conceived through James Bond’s arch-nemesis Blofeld) and adds a retro-50’s kitsch to it, complete with a deco-infused diner as it’s centerpiece. It doesn’t make much sense why it looks like that, but then of course that’s part of the Kingsman’s appeal. It’s a series built upon flipping genre conventions on it’s head, while still indulging in the things that make the genre work in the first place. And while a lot of it was done better in the first movie, the series as a whole continues to stand out as a unique blend of the thrilling and the absurd thanks to Matthew Vaughn’s own assured vision.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is still far more clever and thrilling than most other action films today, but I’m sure that most people like myself will come away with a slight bit of disappointment after seeing it. The plot is too unfocused to ever remain engaging, and most of the clever ideas end up getting diminished in a movie that takes too long to deliver the goods. Perhaps part of the problem is that the expectations were too high based on the success of it’s beloved predecessor, but I think the problem lies more in the fact that we got this movie before it could be ready. I think another draft of the script could have smoothed out some of the pacing and helped to make this movie flow a lot better, but Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman weren’t given the time necessary for pulling that off, and instead we find them here quickly trying to scramble together something that could pass for a sequel. Some good things have come out of it, like the reintroduction of Colin Firth back into the series, and the establishing of the Statesman organization, but I just wish that more time wasn’t wasted on gags and plot threads that go nowhere. If there is to be any more of these films, they need to have a more menacing threat for one thing, and not a villain that comes across as more gimmicky than anything else. It’s a disappointing sequel, but not one that crushes the franchise as a whole. There could be plenty of more worthwhile adventures still waiting for this franchise and hopefully they learn from the mistakes here as they go forward. Until then, if Kingsman: The Secret Service feels like a loving homage to the best of James Bond, absurdity and all, The Golden Circle feels like one of the lesser Bond movies; works fine as part of the hole and important as a continuation of the franchise, but something you’ll probably never revisit again in the same way. It’s the Kingsman’s equivalent of Quantum of Solace (2008); fun, but hard to love.

Rating: 7/10

Editorials

Movie Palaces – A Guide to Finding the Right Theater for Your Movie Experience

September 17, 2017 James Humphreys

For as long as we have had cinema as an art-form, we have had the experience of watching movies. It’s very existence calls for us the audience to make ourselves comfortable and observe that art for an extended period of time, and most commonly, with other people. Cinema is a communal experience like few others, and that experience calls for the right kind of amenities to compliment it. While the mechanics of making movies has evolved over the years, so has the business of presenting film as well. After production is completed, the business of presentation takes over and within it comes a whole other field of innovations and changes. The movie theater business has a fascinating history all it’s own, and it’s one that I myself am familiar with personally. I worked for 4 1/5 years in a movie theater while putting myself through college, and it gave me a great insight into the daily functions of how a movie theater does business. The theater was Cinemark 17 in Springfield, Oregon and in those several years I worked there, I found myself working in every possible department, apart from management. I worked concessions, I cleaned up each theater as an usher, sold tickets at the box office, greeted people in the lobby as I tore their tickets, and even ran the projectors in the booth upstairs. It was a multi-faceted job that opened me up to many different skills, but what I took away most from my experience there was the insight into what made the movie-going experience special. Our job was to ensure that the audience had the best viewing experience possible and that it would ensure their repeat business in the future; a not uncommon goal for most businesses, but with the industry of film-making and presentation, it is all about ensuring that a day at the movies is the best option available to the audience.

When you look back at the history of the movie theater business, you see an industry that is constantly in change due to the changing forces of the market. In the early days, movie theaters were as essential to cinema as anything else. The only way you could watch a movie in the first couple decades was by going to your town’s local movie theater and paying for a ticket. Movies were celebrated as much as live events back in those days, and the theater business likewise treated it as such. The first theaters created specifically for film were elaborate auditoriums that mimicked the aesthetic of the great music halls of the era. These were meant to be monuments to the artistry of film, and that’s why they were often given the name, “movie palaces.” Even small town theaters aped the majesty of these early theaters, and some of those are what you still find today. Competition from television forced a change in cinema though, and thus we saw the era of gimmicks in the movie theater business. This was the era of 3-D, Widescreen, and Smell-O-Vision, as theaters were trying anything to appeal to audiences, reminding them that there were experiences still that they would only find in a movie theater. The era of the blockbuster changed cinema once again, as it became clear that single screen “movie palaces” were not enough to contain the growing business of Hollywood. So, the multiplex came into existence; one singular building containing multiple screens which could show several movies all at one time. For a while, multiplexes were able to sustain audience interest in a televised world, but as technology changed, so would the theater business. Now, in our digital internet driven world, cinema faces a new challenge; streaming services. The rise of Netfilx, Amazon, and Hulu has changed Hollywood once again, and we find cinema in a new quandary about what they should do next.

It’s not a problem so much for Hollywood, since they have new avenues opened up to show more of their product. But, for the theater business, it’s becoming a serious issue. Home entertainment has become more and more sophisticated in recent years, and now poses a serious threat to the survival of the cineplex theater model in the process. When a movie has a day one release in both theaters and on streaming services simultaneously, which do you think most people would choose? Movie theaters charge you an arm and a leg for snacks at their concessions, while at home, you are only footsteps away from your fridge. You can pause the film while you take a break to use the restroom and not miss anything important. High Definition projectors are also becoming more affordable for home theaters, and can give the viewer even more of the cinematic experience right from the comfort of their own living room. Which raises the question even more now; why go out to the movies at all? For a long time, movie theaters could deal with that question by emphasizing the grandeur of their amenities, the exclusivity of their presentations, and the value of what you were getting. But now, the streaming market has put more of the choice into the hands of the viewer and they are backing up their appeal with exclusives of their own. Some filmmakers are embracing streaming, because it gives them more creative freedom to create the films that they want to make, feeling less pressure to deliver a product that appeals to a broader theater going public. Netflix and Amazon in particular are trying to outdo one another in their big name exclusives, with filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and the Coen Brothers all bringing their next projects exclusively to streaming. There are purists for the theater experience, like Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, and Quentin Tarantino, but even with their best efforts, they still aren’t able to redirect the tide.

Even still, they do make a good point. There really is no substitute to the movie theater experience. Home viewing has it’s benefits, and is understandably the preferred choice for some. But, I personally feel that watching a movie in a theater with an auditorium full of other viewers is still the optimal way to watch a movie. There is just something about the communal experience of it that makes going to the movies worth it in the end. Maybe I’m biased because of my many years working in a movie theater, but even several years removed from that job now, I still prefer going out and watching a movie in a theater over watching it first on television. There’s just something about experiencing the same movie with a room full of complete strangers and witnessing their own varied emotions as they react to the same thing that I’m watching with them. In many ways, it does leave a different reaction on me as I leave after watching a movie. Seeing a crowd laugh hysterically all at once to a hilarious bit, or jump out of their seat at a well timed jump scare has it’s own level of entertainment that can’t be underestimated. Even overhearing an audience’s opinion of a movie, whether positive or negative, offers an extra level to the experience. I remember staying through the credits of 2015’s awful Fantastic Four reboot and remembering 20 random people in the audience all booing the screen at once. That’s something that you won’t get at home, unless you can make yourself yell as loud as 20 people. For me, the audience experience is what makes going to the movie theater special, but even without an audience, the thrill of seeing a movie projected on the biggest screen possible is still an ideal as well. But, it’s not enough for some people who just want to relax and have the comforts of home available to them, as well as the ability to have entertainment available at their own convenience.

As a person who understands a little bit about the business of showcasing film and operating a theater, I believe that it is worth sharing some pointers about how to find the theater experience that is right for you. First, you have to take into account the options within your area. Growing up in a small Oregon college town, I had more limited options than say a big city would. During my childhood, there were three medium sized theaters and a classic movie palace in my hometown. That number has decreased down to the two available today, but both modern theaters are equipped with more screens in total. There was also a rise in art cinemas over those years, which brought the option of independent, alternative cinema to my hometown. So with all these choices, my decisions of where to watch a movie were based on location, availability and variety. The theater in my part of town unfortunately closed in the year 2000, as well as the last remaining movie palace, but the multiplexes made up for the loss with their updated amenities. Over time, I valued the more advanced amenities than anything else, because I wanted the best possible presentation for my movie-going experience. The Cinemark 17 theater had the biggest screens, stadium seating, and state-of-the-art sound and projection, making it my preferred theater, and just by chance, it would end up being my workplace as well. Living in a bigger city, you might have multiple theaters that offer the same amenities, so at that point, your choices might be limited to how close it is to your home. Some smaller towns might only have one single theater, which limits the choices even further, and makes streaming services a more viable option for those who want more variety. I was fortunate to live in a place that had variety but also clear cut choices, which made it easier to find my ideal theater; but not all places are going to make that choice easy, so then you have to take other things into consideration.

One thing to look at is what your local theater provides. For someone who wants to watch a blockbuster on the biggest screen possible, seeking out a large multiplex becomes the ideal option. Thanks to the recent successes of The Dark Knight (2008) and Avatar (2009), gimmicks like IMAX film and 3D projection have proliferated to reach a much bigger audience in more venues across the country. Once the market sees the value of such gimmicks as part of the experience, they are more ready to invest more fully in it, and that’s why you see IMAX and 3D in more markets today. But even with wider availability, there are some elements of these that prove to be more exclusive than others. While you find IMAX most everywhere nowadays, insiders will tell you that it’s not a true IMAX experience until you find the right theater. Most multiplexes today just have retrofitted an IMAX projector and screen into their normal size theater, which kind of hampers the experience. True IMAX is presented on 100 ft. screens in select theaters across the country, and these are the only ones that are specially equipped to run true 70 millimeter IMAX, which is the best quality picture that you’ll find for the format. This is the film process that directors like Christopher Nolan and the like are fond of, and prefer to have their films presented in. It does limit the availability however, making it so that some film purists will have to travel out of their area to find the right kind of presentation. Living now in LA, I can tell you that I don’t have a problem with finding theaters with special gimmicks such as this. In fact, Los Angeles seems to be the testing ground for all the technological advancements that theaters are trying to make work for a national audience. Here, in addition to true IMAX, you’ve got the advances of Dolby Atmos sound in theaters, as well as 4DX presentations, where the very seats you are in move and enhance the feeling of immersion into the theater. Not all of it will cross over, but it’s interesting to see the theater industry try to figure out ways to make the theater experience even more special.

Outside of Los Angeles, there are other innovations that are making the theater-going experience something worthwhile. In Texas, the Alamo Drafthouse theater chain has revolutionized the concept of Dine-In theaters. There they do away with the original concession stand element of a movie theater, and replace it with full service dining while watching your film. The Drafthouse business plan has become a favorite with Gen X and Millennial audiences who want a more of a hip vibe to their movie-going experience, and it is beginning to catch on across the country, including here in LA. Apart from that, you see small innovations in local art house cinemas across the country. Art cinemas bring character to the film-going experience, not only giving you a look at first run movies, but also immersing yourself into one of a kind experiences based on where you are seeing the movie. Sometimes you’ll be watching a movie in a theater that’s been unchanged since the dawn of cinema itself, making it feel like you’ve wandered into a time capsule. Other theaters are built into unusual places like defunct old schools, churches, factories, or a small little office space. Despite the peculiarity of some theaters, it nevertheless makes the theater going experience feel unique, and independent theaters often bring that feeling much closer to home. In many ways, the relics of the past actually gives the viewer much more of a kinship to the cinematic experience because it remind them of a time when going to the movies was a special event. And if they aren’t a holdover from the past, new age art cinemas can draw in audiences by offering the things that other theaters won’t, like unique cuisine and house brewed beverages that you can only find there in the theater. If anything, it’s that diversion from the norm that helps to brings repeat business back to these theaters.

The only downside of trying to compete with home entertainment is the the theater industry’s belief that they have to conform to it. On a recent trip back home to my old theater, Cinemark 17, I noticed that they went through a massive new renovation. Each theater is now equipped with leather back recliners and has fewer seats than before to accommodate the extra leg room for each customer, with giant walls blocking view of the rows in front of view, leaving only the screen visible. While it does make the experience more comfortable for the viewer, I was troubled by the walls that closed off each row. To me, it robs the theater of that unique audience experience that I enjoyed. Sure, this is more ideal for the viewer who wants more privacy and something closer to their viewing experience at home, and I understand my old theater’s desire to adapt to that audience accommodation. But it’s not my ideal viewing experience. This was the point that I realized that my old theater was not my ideal theater anymore. It changed with the times and became something else. I still will go to movies there, but it’s just not the same. Living in Los Angeles now, I do have variety to fill that need, but if I were still living in a small town, this might be a more troubling change overall. For me, a movie theater is more than just a place to relax while watching a movie. It’s about sharing that experience with others. With streaming services competing for exclusive content in the marketplace, I feel that the answer for the theater industry is to not comply and make their theaters more like a home, but more like a palace. Essentially, I want everyone to experience a movie for the first time in the most spectacular way possible and that’s by getting off the couch and joining hundreds of other in the shared majesty that is cinema. Bigger screens, elaborate amenities, and even a clever gimmick or special treat to enhance the flavor of the moment. Going to the movies has always been a special thing in my life, and my hope is that all of you can find that special experience too, no matter where you are.

Off the Page

Off the Page – Treasure Island

September 9, 2017 James Humphreys

Pirate movies have usually seen their highs and lows in Hollywood. Popular in their heyday of Hollywood’s Golden Age, with stars like Errol Flynn making his mark on the genre, pirates later become outcast as movie budgets for high seas adventures grew higher and higher. Eventually, pirate movies saw a resurgence in the early 2000’s thanks to Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean movies, but even there time has shifted the popularity away from swashbucklers once again. Even still, you can see a long tradition of pirate movies throughout the history of film, and through them, you can find a whole variety of peculiar stories and characters worthy of cinematic treatment. There are plenty of famous pirate stories that have been adapted over the years, either from true life or from literature, but if one were to pinpoint the most quintessential pirate’s tale from any medium, it would probably be Robert Louis Stevnson’s immortal classic, Treasure Island. First published 1883, in an era not too far removed from when pirates were really roaming the seas, Stevenson’s novel has gone one to become not just a beloved read to many, but also the basis for much of the pirate lore that we are familiar with today. In Treasure Island, we see the beginnings of many tropes we associate with pirates, like treasure maps marked with an “X,” the Black Spot death mark, peg legs, and even the trope of parrots resting on the shoulders of their pirate masters. It is, to this day, a widely read book and pretty much the first story that comes to mind when one thinks of pirates. The tale of young Jim Hawkins and the feared pirate Long John Silver naturally has also found it’s way to the big screen as well. Surprisingly, or not surprisingly to some, the studio that has been associated with this particular tale the most has been the Disney company, which has been responsible for two screen adaptations; three if you count Muppet Treasure Island (1996).

The second of these adaptations is the one that I want to focus on here, because it represents a very interesting thing that you usually see in Hollywood, and that’s the practice of re-imagining. A re-imagined movie is one where it takes an already established and familiar story and re-contextualizes through a different setting or style. You see this a lot when Hollywood imports a movie idea from the international market and remakes it. Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai (1954) was remade into a Western called The Magnificent Seven (1960) for example, and while the setting and time period are very different, both movies still retained the same general plot. One common re-imagining you see in Hollywood is taking a familiar story and setting it in an alien world, or out into space, which is exactly what Disney did with their animated feature Treasure Planet (2002). What’s interesting about Disney’s re-imagined version of the story is how much they ground it in the original tale, while at the same time taking it way outside our world. It’s futuristic, and old-fashioned at the same time. Here we see 18th century aesthetic planted onto interplanetary technology from a far distant future and it leads to some quite amazing visuals. Here, pirates don’t have peg legs but instead become part cyborg, and sailing ships are equipped for venturing through the stars instead of the open seas. At the same time, the movie runs the risk of having these two styles clashing and causing a distraction from the overall story, but regardlesss of one’s feelings towards the look of the film, there’s no doubting that it is a bold choice. Disney certainly gambled with this film, and sadly it didn’t click with audiences in the way they hoped. It’s often cited as the movie that killed the traditional animation market, rather unfairly. Still, it is interesting to see how much of the movie maintain’s the essence of Stevenson’s classic novel, even with all the sci-fi flourish. And in many ways, it’s what helps to make the movie work as well as it does.

“The were nights when the winds of the Etherium, so inviting in their promise of flight and freedom, made one’s spirit soar.”

Disney’s development of Treasure Planet has an interesting history of it’s own. The film was a dream project for longtime directing partners John Musker and Ron Clements. Working together since the mid-80’s, they are the team responsible for such Disney classics as The Little Mermaid (1989), Aladdin (1992), Hercules (1997), and more recently The Princess and the Frog (2009) and Moana (2016). But, for most of their partnership, they had always held onto Treasure Planet as their ultimate goal. They pitched it to the top brass at Disney as far back as before The Little Mermaid, and would return back to it between projects over the course of almost 17 years. At the turn of the century, with technology advancing to the point where it became more feasible to make a concept like Treasure Island in space a reality, Ron & John were finally given the green-light to work on their long waiting dream. The reason that this project meant so much to them is because they were both big fans of the original novel and of science fiction in general. It’s probably something that bonded them together as collaborators and what drove their determination to see it through. Now, they knew that the story appealed to Disney, seeing as how Walt Disney himself had created a live action adaptation back in the 1950’s (a studio first by the way). Their choice of setting it in space, however, was their way of distinguishing it from all other adaptations that have come before, and make it more visually appealing in the animated medium. Animation can tell a story in ways that are too limited in live action, so why shouldn’t they take those kinds of liberties with Treasure Island. It’s clear that Ron Clements and John Musker set out to make the movie with a lot of love and respect for Stevenson’s original, and resetting it in space was not an attempt to exploit the story for the purposes of making it more exciting. No, once you see the movie, you’ll notice that it’s not the changes to the setting that make the biggest difference; it’s often the changes in the characters that leave the biggest impact.

“The Cyborg!! Beware the Cyborg!!!”

There are alterations to many of the main cast that were done mostly out of expedience. Jim Hawkins companions, Dr. Livesey and John Trelawney are combined together into one character in the film; Dr. Doppler (voiced by David Hyde Pierce), who is re-imagined to have come from an alien race that appears to be canine based. The savvy commander of the expedition, Captain Smollett, is completely re-imagined here, not only taking on a feline form, but also shifting genders to be female, in the form of Captain Amelia (voiced with authority by Emma Thompson). Most other characters from the box are either excised or completely altered; the villainous Blind Pew is no where to be seen for instance. Minimizing the cast benefits the film greatly though because it puts the focus where it needs to be, which is on the relationship that forms between Jim Hawkins and John Silver. What Ron & John seemed to care about most from the original novel is how this unlikely friendship between the young boy and the fearsome pirate forms and inevitably shapes their destinies. It plays out much in the same way as in the book, but whereas the novel allows the relationship to form over the course of a serialized recounting over several chapters, the movie has to build that connection in a rather short amount of time. The way that the movie makes it work is that they establish very early on that Jim is dealing with the aftermath of his abandonment by his father. Because of this, he has turned cold and distant to others around him. Silver, spots this while on their voyage and instantly takes an interest in steering him in the right direction. Now, of course it probably was Silver’s way of coaxing the truth about the treasure map out of Jim, but the great surprise within the story is that Silver actually proves to be a better father figure to Jim than either of them ever would’ve realized. And that was the appeal that prompted the directors to take the story so seriously, seeing the importance of mentor-ship in forming young minds.

It is interesting comparing Jim Hawkins and John Silver to other like minded characters in the Disney family. John Silver in particular is very unconventional as a Dinsey villain. Where most Disney antagonists are un-redeemable rogues who get what’s coming to them, Silver actually stands out for having a redemptive arc. In fact, it is often hard to call him a villain at all, despite his often awful deeds. It’s his relationship to Jim that makes him likable to us the audience, because we are witnessing the story from Jim’s point of view. As he begins to warm up to Silver, so do we, and it’s that bond that drives the emotional heart of the movie. It is, in many ways, what makes the film work so well, because the movie makes that relationship between the boy and the pirate work so well. John Silver is one of literature’s most memorable characters, given as he has now become the archetypal pirate for most people, and the version in the film is really something to behold. Using a combination of both hand drawn animation and CGI, Silver is a beautifully constructed hybrid. Instead of his signature one leg, Silver is shown to be half man and half cyborg, with computer animated limbs that transform into a variety of tools at his disposal. His hand drawn parts were done by legendary animator Glen Keane, whose long history at Disney has included animating complex characters like the Beast in Beauty and the Beast (1991) as well as Tarzan in Tarzan (1999), which made him a perfect fit for this character. While his character animation combined with the CGI parts are impressive on their own, it’s the way that he puts emotion in the model that really drives home the brilliance of the character on film. Matched perfectly with the voice of stage actor Brian Murray who plays Silver, the animation calls for some rather emotional moments and it delivers. I was particularly struck by the subtlety of the moment when Jim asks Silver how he lost his limbs, to which he replies solemnly, “You lose a few things chasing a dream.” It’s a great moment of vocal and animation acting that makes this, in my mind, the best version of Long John Silver we’ve ever seen on the big screen.

“At least you taught me something, “Stick to it,” right? Well, that’s just what I’m gonna do. I’m going to make sure that you never see one drubloon of ‘my’ treasure.”

The depiction of Jim Hawkins is somewhat different, especially from the book. He’s depicted as a bit older than his literary source, and with far more of a chip on his shoulder. For Jim Hawkins in the novel, his passion is driven by a desire to have an adventure, which literally comes falling into his lap once Billy Bones gives him the treasure map from his death bed. In the movie, still reeling from the crushing abandonment by his father, Jim wants to set out on this journey to prove to both his mother and himself that he’s not a failure. The early depiction of Jim at the film’s start might put off some literary purists, because he’s absolutely modeled after a moody, millennial teenager in those scenes. We first see him recklessly playing some extreme sports on his solar surfer, which gets him in trouble with the law, and he often punctuates his conversations with modern anachronisms like, “cool,” “dude” or “whatever.” But, as the film illustrates, these character flaws are what motivates the transformation that he goes through by film’s end. He’s given voice by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the film, who does a good job of bringing a lot of emotion to the character. As an actor not too far removed from being a teenager himself at the time of this film’s making, Joseph manages to balance the maturing of the character in a believable and balanced way. We see him grow from being pessimistic and self-involved to one willing to sacrifice his life even for those who have done him wrong. In the depiction of Jim Hawkins, we see how important the need for a positive role model is in a young person’s life, and the great irony from the story is that that positive direction comes from a bloodthirsty pirate. It’s a trope that you still see used today, such as the recent Oscar-winner Moonlight (2016), where a young man finds his positive father figure in his neighborhood’s local drug lord. In Treasure Planet, this part of the story is given it’s full attention and helps it to resound all the more. Stevenson managed to make the unusual relationship something that stood it apart from it’s peers, but the animated movie drives it home in a much stronger way.

Apart from the characters, the film makes the most profound changes in the visuals. The blend of old and new in the film is fascinating to see realized. According to Ron Clements and John Musker, they took inspiration from the Brandywine School style of artwork, which emphasized fine detail and a mixture of cool and warm hues within their paintings. You commonly see paintings of this type associated with literary book covers from the turn of the century, and that’s exactly what drew the directors towards adapting it for their film. In order to make that work with sci-fi elements, Musker and Clements stuck to a 70-30 rule, which meant that their film would incorporate that ratio into every aesthetic element needed. That’s how you get schooners that operate with solar sails, or grotesque aliens that wear 18th century clothing, and celestial skies that fill the place of open seas. It’s a ratio that surprising works out very well. Over time, you actually forget about the anachronistic disparity between the two styles, and just accept it as the world that it is, which helps to absorb you into the story all the more. I believe that grounding it in this classical style helps to maintain the Stevenson touch, while at the same time modernizing it in an effective way. Treasure Planet itself is a beautiful iconic image on it’s own, with it’s dual ring system that not surprisingly marks an “X” over the planet. The visual effects themselves follow that same 70-30 rule, as it shows perhaps the most sophisticated blend of CGI and traditional animation that has ever been achieved. With that, it brings a scale to the story that I don’t believe has ever been achieved before. One of the most striking images is the reveal of the crescent shaped space port. The incredibly complex shot zooms in from far away, showing what we thought was a moon is actually a intricately detailed port. Coming in closer, we find that much of the detail resembles what early seafaring ports might have looked like in the 18th century, but with dimensions that defy the laws of physics. It’s that blend that breaths new life in this old story and continues it throughout the film. Some critics may not have seen the point of this change, and wondered why Disney didn’t just remake Treasure Island in a normal way, but after seeing amazing images like that one, who can argue with such a change.

“Doctor, with the greatest possible respect, zip your howling screamer.”

Disney’s Treasure Planet was a bold departure from the norm in animation, and it was a gamble that in the beginning didn’t do them any good. The film has some devoted fans (myself included) and is growing a cult following. But, some arguments still arise as to why Disney would bring sci-fi into Treasure Island. The answer to this is that there is nothing about Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel that necessarily says it has to take place in a certain place or time. In fact, Stevenson remains vague about the story’s actual setting, instead focusing on how the plot unfolds and the relationships between the characters. Disney’s interpretation brings a new perspective on the story, while at the same time maintaining the heart of it. In the end, it is about a young boy who comes of age, finding his way in life through the mentor-ship of an unlikely role model. In the end, that’s what John Musker and Ron Clements wanted to explore, and for the most part, they achieved their goal. You can tell that the whole film was made with a lot of love, and you don’t commit 17 years of your life to an idea just to do a mediocre job at it. It does offer a great contrast with the original story, of which still serves as much of the backbone of the movie. The film delves deeper into the personal struggles, but apart from that and the changed setting, it is essentially a faithful adaptation right down the line. If only this film had come out a year later, with Pirates of the Caribbean revitalizing the genre, then it might have found a more accepting audience. In the end, it is worthwhile to see both the movie and the novel itself. Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic still holds up as the quintessential pirate’s tale, and Disney’s animated feature lives up to it’s legacy, while at the same time completely transforming it. It is, in my opinion, Disney’s most misunderstood film and my hope is that someday it will be fully appreciated as the masterpiece that it is. Visually, it stands out as one of Disney’s most spectacular achievements and it’s story is one that packs an emotional wallop. Like Silver says of Jim Hawkins in the film, it’s got the makings of greatness in it.

“Look at you! Glowing like a solar fire. You’re something special, Jim. You’re gonna the stars, you are!”

Editorials

Recobbled – The Neverending Story of a Lost Animation Masterpiece

September 2, 2017 James Humphreys

Animation is a remarkable, yet time consuming art-form. When audiences see a new animated film in their local theater, I’m sure that very few of them ever think about the time and money that was poured into their completion. With changing technologies, that extensive time frame has shortened somewhat, but even Computer animated features can still take years to be completed. Back in the Golden Age of animation, you would sometimes be looking at 5 years or more for the production of a full length feature, from concept through production, to locking it in the can. Towards the end of the heyday of hand drawn animation, 4 or 5 years was commonplace, though it would fluctuate between a very short (2.5 years for Beauty and the Beast) and very long (6.5 years for Sleeping Beauty). But, what about 31 years of production? That was the case with a little seen but highly regarded animated feature called The Thief and the Cobbler (1995). The magnum opus and work of passion for independent Canadian animator Richard Williams, Thief not only carries the longest production span of any animated film ever; it holds the record for the longest film production, period. And in fact, it could be argued that the movie is still not done, depending on what version of the film you are watching. I briefly mentioned this movie in a previous article about prolonged film developments and felt that it was deserving of a analysis all it’s own. The Thief and the Cobbler is a movie that has fascinated me recently as an animation fan, not so much for the movie itself, but for the fascinating history of it’s production. In Thief, you see not just a fascinating work of pure artistic passion on display, but a document to the history of animation itself.

To know something about this movie, you need to know a little about the mad genius behind it. Richard Williams is a veteran of the animation medium, and is widely considered within the industry to be one of the great masters. Though he had for many years been courted by major animation studios like Disney and Warner Brothers to jump on board their teams, Williams has largely preferred to work independently through his small London, England based studio. From there, he has largely made a name for himself as a highly respected commercial and title sequence producer. His work can be seen in the opening titles of 60’s and 70’s era classics like What’s New Pussycat? (1965) and A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966), as well as in classic British television commercials from the era. What made his work stand out was the intricate and fluid detail that he would put into his animation; utilizing complexity that few other studios would ever attempt. In 1971, legendary animator Chuck Jones commissioned Williams’ studio to create a short adaptation of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol and the result was a critically acclaimed success. Originally intended for television, Carol was subsequently given a theatrical run, which led to Oscar win for Williams and his team. From that, he was given an even bigger commissioned assignment to create a film centered around the Raggedy Ann & Andy dolls. True to Williams style, Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure (1977) is an animated film unlike any other you will ever see; with bizarre and often surreal sequences that defy explanation, and not what you would expect for a movie based of rag dolls. But, Williams career is most defined by his life’s work, The Thief and the Cobbler, a movie that sadly became too big a dream to hold onto.

The Thief and the Cobbler began in 1964 as a collaboration with Middle Eastern author Idires Shah, who collected and translated many Arabic tales about a character called Mulla Nasrudin, or “the wise fool.” When the partnership between Williams and Shah broke down, Williams retained the idea for the project and changed the “wise fool” into the character that would eventually be the titular Thief. Later, Williams began another go at developing the project in earnest with a new treatment by screenwriter Howard Blake. Blake’s treatment brought many elements that would turn up in the final film, including the titular cobbler named Tack, the evil vizier Zig Zag, the sleepy king, and the plot device of the Three Golden Balls that protect the Golden City. Though the script helped to bring structure to the story, Williams maintained a free-flowing style to his direction. Instead of story-boarding out his scenes, he instead opted to let scenes play out based on the imaginations of himself and his artists. This unfortunately led to a lot of sequences that added little to no momentum to the plot, though they stood out as remarkable on their own. Williams also insisted on animating the sequences in 24 frames per second, as opposed to the industry standard of 12 frames. The result gives the animation a remarkably smooth flow, which becomes mesmerizing the longer the sequences run; which sometimes can be several minutes without cutting. And that in lies why it took 20 years to only complete 20 minutes of the planed 100 minute movie. And because of this sluggish adherence to free-flowing storytelling and complex animation that Williams was hard pressed to find funding for so long to complete his master work.

Over time, William’s studio managed to stay afloat with projects like Carol and Raggedy Ann & Andy, but Thief was always waiting in the wings for when the opportunity came. Due to mounting economic pressure, Williams constantly had to simplify his story and cut back on his animation, but he still persisted with his bold vision. Sometimes, he lucked out with an interested investor. In the late 70’s, 15 years since the start of production, Williams caught the attention of Saudi prince Mohammed bin Faisal Al Saud, who commissioned an animation test to see if the remainder of the film was worthy investing in. Williams used this influx of funds to complete what would end up being the film’s most complex scene, the destruction of the colossal War Machine from the villainous barbarian King One-Eye, a sequence that to this day is mind-boggling in it’s complexity. Though the prince was impressed with the work that Williams had done, the cost overrun and missed deadlines prevented further investment, and Williams was forced yet again to shelve his dream project, although now with perhaps the most elaborate sequence finished. Though unseen by the public, Willaims was still able to share what he had done to other industry professionals who had nothing but high praise for what they saw. Eventually, Disney sought Williams assistance with one elaborate project of their own; the Robert Zemekis directed Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988). What Willaims revolutionized at his studio was multi-perspective animation, where character and environments would constantly change perspective as the camera placement swoops around, giving them an almost three-dimensional look. Naturally, Disney wanted this style to help their hand-drawn animated characters like Roger and Jessica Rabbit co-exist believably in a live action film, where camera movement is ever-changing. Williams was named Animation Director for the film, and his work again garnered him an Honorary Oscar.

With the goodwill from Roger Rabbit, Richard Williams finally had the attention of Hollywood, and plenty of interested parties lined up to give Williams the needs to finally finish Thief for good. Disney and Steven Spielberg, the parties behind Roger Rabbit, expressed interest at first in funding the project, but later backed out. Warner Brothers stepped in and signed Williams to a contract. With that, he had the money and the manpower to complete his film, as well a release schedule that he had to adhere to. He was finally able to have over an hour of completed film, but again, his adherence to perfection caused to project to go over-budget and over-schedule. Sadly, at the same time, Disney was themselves working on their own Arabian set animated feature, Aladdin (1992), which made Warner Brothers all the more impatient and worried. Unfortunately, Williams darker and more adult-appealing film was less marketable than Disney’s blockbuster, and Warner became certain that they had a film that was un-releasable. So, they cut their contract with Williams and ended up selling it to a secondary animation studio run by Fred Calvert in order to complete it, without Williams involved. Williams tried to salvage what he had with a 1992 workprint screened for studio execs, but it didn’t work. Thirty one years since the first drawing had been completed, The Thief and the Cobbler was released to little fanfare in 1995 with nearly half of Williams original film either cut or re-animated, with a new Disney-style musical score and celebrity voices cast for his originally mute title characters (Matthew Broaderick as Tack the Cobbler and Jonathan Winters as the Thief). Vincent Price, who recorded his voice for the villain Zig Zag over the 30 year span, was retained, but because the film released after his 1993 death, his lines ended up getting cut down rather than replaced. Miramax oversaw the release in North America, and this compromised version has since become known as the “Miramax Cut” even though they had nothing to do with the production.

Thus, the long, troubled production of Richard Williams masterpiece came seemingly to an end, with his vision never being fully realized. He came close, but studio interference caught up to him in the end. Regardless, Williams is still regarded as a legend among the animation community and Thief surprisingly has something to do with that. Because of it’s long production, Thief stands as somewhat of a documentation of the evolution of animation, bridging the Golden Era with the Renaissance of the late 80’s and the early 90’s. Think about it, in the time it took Thief to be completed, Disney Animation had put out 15 feature films, and had seen their studio both decline and be reborn under new management. Walt Disney was still breathing when production started on this film, just to give you an idea of how far back this project began. Animation as a whole changed so much in that time, and you can see that reflected in the movie. While Williams attention to detail remains fluid throughout, you can spot instances when the quality differs. The sequences that were animated late in production have a different, more polished look than others that were made decades earlier. The older scenes, mostly centered around the Thief, have a more classical look to them, not unlike many of the trippy, psychedelic animated films that arose in the 60’s and 70’s. Couple the sequences where the Thief tries to steal the magical Golden Balls and the climatic War Machine sequence at the end, and it’s clear that they were made in different eras, where different tools were made available to animators. At the same time, Williams staff of animators also shows a remarkable span of animation history. He brought onto his team some legendary animators like former Disney animator Art Babbit (who worked on the Queen in Snow White and Geppetto in Pinocchio) and Grim Natwick (the creator of Betty Boop) to not only contribute their own animation, but also to mentor both him and his young staff. And among his young staff were newcomers like Andreas Deja and Eric Goldberg, who would go onto prosperous careers at Disney, including working on films like Aladdin (animating Jafar and the Genie respectively).

In addition to it’s legacy of reputation and the quality of it’s talent, The Thief and the Cobbler also is a perfect illustration of how just how difficult it is to get a movie made. Not every studio has the financial security and resources of Disney. And Williams never wanted that either. He knew that he would never see his vision realized in a corporate controlled environment, so he continually sought to keep his production as independent as possible. He stated very early on that his movie was going to be very non-Disney, both in the animation and in the story-telling. No songs, no animal sidekicks; just pure visuals transporting the viewer to a world never seen on screen before. Sadly, when corporate interests did intervene, it turned the movie into exactly what Williams was trying to avoid. In that regard, the “Miramax” cut stands as a cautionary tale of when studio interference spoils the finished product. Williams’ workprint has resurfaced over time and has been circulated online in various forms. Williams himself has managed to put the disappointment behind him and moved onto other projects, though the movie is still a sore point to this day. Dedicated fans however have done extensive work to try to reconstruct William’s original version. Roy Disney, Walt’s nephew, even tried to get a restoration off the ground before his untimely death in 2009. Other fans have shared their own work online in what is now known as the “Recobbled Cut.” This version shows William’s original intent with unfinished, work-in-progress scenes inter-cut with finished ones from the Workprint. Though in rough form, it nevertheless shows us what might’ve been. What’s fascinating is that it shows that animated films are ever completed in sequence, but are often done out of order, with the more complex scenes done first. In the recobbled cut, we see that many of the unfinished parts are the filler moments in between the more epic scenes. Thankfully, Williams brilliance shows in the film’s spectacular finished moments, like the War Machine, the chase through the palace, the villain Zig Zag’s grand entrance, and the polo game with the Thief caught in the middle. We may not have a finished film, but these big moments allows our imagination to fill in the rest.

Richard Williams, now 84 years old as of this writing, is still working on new projects today. He most recently completed an entirely hand-drawn short called Prologue (2015) which takes many of the techniques he pioneered with Thief like hyper-detailed character animation and three-dimensional perspective changes, and presents them in a stripped back, pencil sketch presentation. Again, this was another labor of love that he worked on for years, even while he was still making Thief, and his efforts were rewarded with yet another Oscar nomination. Though, he’s moved on from Thief, he still hopes that someday it will see a new life, and maybe even completed based on his original vision. A screening of Thief in 2013, based off the Workprint with a new high-def restoration, won wide praise from the animation community, and Williams is once again embracing the film, incomplete as it is, as his most cherished work. For those of you interested in seeing the movie, avoid the compromised “Miramax Cut” and find one that is closer to Williams vision. Sadly, the Miramax version is the only one available on home video, but, the makers of the Recobbled version have graciously made it available to view online for free. In fact, I’m linking it for you all to enjoy below this article, because I want as many people as possible to experience it. It’s not perfect, nor is it among my favorite animated films, but as a fan of animation, I admire it as a work of un-compromised artistry. It’s also a fascinating look into the creation of an animated film, with so many sequences in various stages of completion. Whether or not we see a finished version of this one day is unclear, and it’s highly likely that it may never be complete, but for now, we can appreciate what 30 years of a persistent artistic vision can accomplish. In this movie, you see the story of the animated medium played out in one place, with artistic styles of several eras all coming together at once and creating something special. And whether people know it or not, it has influenced a whole generation of artists in the years since. In the end, it’s the animated equivalent of a Venus de Milo; more powerful broken apart than it would’ve ended up being as a whole.

PART 1