Monthly Archives: March 2021

Editorials

The Year Without a Blockbuster – 2020’s Impact on Cinema, the Oscars, and Beyond

One year and one week ago, the unthinkable happened.  Like every other part of life, and like so many other nations around the world, American cinema ground to a screeching halt due to the imminent threat of the Coronavirus pandemic.  Movie productions halted.  Studios sent their employees to work from home, or even worse laid them off entirely.  And even more wider reaching for the industry, the entire theatrical market shut down.  It was unlike anything we had ever seen in the history of cinema, and even more worrisome, we didn’t know exactly when it would end either.  As we were adapting quickly to realities of living in a pandemic, it became clear that this would be more than just a temporary pause; this was going to be a long lasting disruption that would leave an immediate impact on society.  I know that the problems it gave the movie industry are trivial in the grand scheme of things, but it is nevertheless interesting to see how cinema culture was forced to evolve quickly under these unprecedented circumstances.  It’s nothing that the movies has ever faced before, since the last pandemic of this size occurred over 100 years ago in 1918.  Cinema was still in it’s infancy then; there was no Hollywood, no multiplexes.  There was no standardization back in 1918 and movies were nothing more than a roadshow attraction like the circus or vaudeville.  But once COVID-19 arrived in 2020, Hollywood and cinema had reached a point where it had become a multi-billion dollar a year industry that was dependent on drawing the biggest crowds possible.  And when you have a catastrophic pandemic that is dependent on large crowds to spread more quickly, well you can see where the movie industry ran into a bit of a crisis.  Thus, we witnessed a full shut down of an entire industry that up until now, for generations, we just took for granted, and it seriously made us wonder if there would indeed be a future for the movie industry going forward.

Being the cinephile that I am, I was certainly devastated when I learned that all movie theaters across the country would be shutting down for an indefinite amount of time.  The first signs came when some of the studios began to move their tentpole features off of their original release dates and pushed them further back into the year.  Once the shut down began, then the worry became whether or not the theaters themselves could survive being closed for a lengthy amount of time.  For a while, the desire to reopen led to a level of cooperation that many hoped would help speed up the process.  Masks, hand sanitizers, cleaning supplies, though scarce in the beginning, became essential tools in the fight, and people began to take their personal health more seriously in response to the virus.  But, almost predictably, people grew tired of following the guidelines and were demanding a return to normal, despite the fact that nothing was normal just yet.  Misinformation began to spread and it prolonged the pandemic beyond what would’ve normally been a downward trend had everyone banded together.  And this continued to plague the movie industry further.  Though movie productions found a way to safely restart filming under health guidelines, movie theaters remained perilously close to the edge of oblivion throughout the rest of the year.  The movie theater chains had to take on a exorbitant amount of debt just to pay the rent while their doors remained closed.  Had they not managed to adapt and even get lucky with their finances (like AMC did with an unexpected stock boost thanks to Reddit), the industry itself was likely to have died.  Movie theaters did slowly reopen throughout the country wherever they could, but the largest markets of New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco remained closed for nearly an entire year, and this made the recovery of the business almost impossible to predict.  Only now are theaters almost all back up in operation, with necessary social distancing measures in place, but there is still a sense that normal is still far out of reach and possibly even unobtainable.

Cinema’s woes due to the pandemic could not have come at a worse time for the industry, as streaming began to come into it’s own throughout 2020.  Leading off from Disney+’s meteoric launch in late 2019, the following year saw enormous growth in the streaming market as audiences were forced to stay home and watch nothing else.  Disney+ benefitted from the head start, as well as their catalog of exclusive content, but Peacock, Apple TV, HBO Max, and the rebranded Paramount+ all managed to gain a strong foothold thanks to the attention that the pandemic driven market brought to their platforms.  Even established players like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu saw an increase in activity through this time.  And these platforms were also the beneficiaries of the need by the studios to unload their increasing backlog of movies that they couldn’t show in theaters.  In a year that many of these platforms would’ve been lacking in original content they now suddenly had exclusive rights to the most sought after movies coming down the pipe from the film industry.  In many ways, 2020 has forced us to reconsider what makes up a blockbuster, because the dynamics that we judged movies on were suddenly changing.  With movies like Soul (2020) an Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) premiering on streaming as opposed to a wide release in theaters, do they still count as a blockbuster success.  The streaming revenue is not measured in the same way that box office receipts are, so how do we judge the success of a film with these metrics now?  Sometimes, these movies will be behind a pay wall like Disney+ offered with their premiere access, but for the ones that are no additional cost like Soul, you would have to believe that Disney is pointing to the increase in membership as their metric of success.  Soul certainly did find an audience, as evidenced by their Oscar nominated status, but considering that it’s predecessors in the Pixar canon have been billion dollar grossing films in the past, is it safe to call it a blockbuster success  in the same breath as those films.  This is true of all the movies released to streaming in the pandemic era.  Given that there was no other choice but to release movies this way, do all of them need to be judged as successes by different measures now?

The fact that we didn’t have a blockbuster in the traditional sense this last year really does have an impact on many different aspects of cinema, apart from exhibition.  It’s pretty striking that the highest grossing film of 2020 in the domestic North American market was a film released all the way back in January; the movie sequel Bad Boys for Life (2020).  And that movie’s $200 million box office gross pails in comparison to past years.  Only the year prior did we see Marvel’s Avengers: Endgame climb to the top of all time global box office.  With movie theaters closed through most of the year, and almost the entire year in the biggest markets, we witnessed another significant shift within the industry as a result, which is the changing paradigm of the global market.  While North America was languishing in a prolonged pandemic response, other nations around the world reopened much faster and as a result were able to get their theatrical markets to reopen sooner.  And for the first time in the history of cinema, the United States was eclipsed as the world leader in box office sales.  Ironically, the nation that most successfully was able to recover it’s theatrical industry post pandemic was China, where the outbreak first began.  Through some very draconian methods of population control, China managed to limit the effects of the virus on their economy and as a result, they were able to keep industries like movie theaters alive once they were allowed to reopen.  And not only have they recovered, but they are thriving right now in China.  Domestic Chinese cinema is now seeing box office numbers the likes of which you normally would see happen to a Marvel or Star Wars film here in America.  This is also garnering the attention of Hollywood and is mainly the reason why you are seeing so many movies move to streaming at this moment.  The movie studios want to capitalize on this robust market right now happening in China, and to avoid bootlegging that could also affect their business here in America, they are simultaneously releasing their movies globally.  So while the Chinese are enjoying entertainment on a big screen, we here in America have to make due with seeing the same kinds of blockbusters on a smaller screen.  What was thought unthinkable nearly a decade ago now seems to have become a reality thanks to the effects of the pandemic:  that North America is no longer the dominant market in the global box office.

And this worries a lot of creatives within the industry.  By appealing more to the Chinese market, Hollywood is also compromising values that it otherwise would stand up for.  Contrary to the attitudes of the modernized people of China, the Chinese Communist government still holds an iron grip on the cultural values of the nation, and as a result they are meticulous about what movies are allowed to play in their cinemas.  Anything with pro-democratic stances or messages of tolerance for different races or sexual orientations are strictly prohibited, as they run contrary to the totalitarian platforms of the ruling Chinese government.  And given that China is an enormous market for all industries, we are seeing a troubling amount of Western corporations compromising their own values in order to appeal to the Chinese, including rolling the rights of women, people of color, and queer individuals backwards.  Representation in media particularly is a troublesome point with regards to how studios are shifting their focus to the Chinese market.  Big budget movies are making it easier to remove a gay character from their movie, while still having it both ways by touting their blink and you’ll miss it queer representation here in America with an easily trimmable clip.  This issue already existed pre-pandemic, but it was certainly exacerbated by COVID, and made more troublesome by the fact that America has lost it’s box office dominance.  For decades, American cinema was a powerful force for changing cultural attitudes around the world, but when the box office paradigm has shifted to favor a country with a shaky record on human rights, the worry becomes whether or not Hollywood is going to turn it’s back on the marginalized that it long has given a voice to.  If the North American box office can recover to pre-pandemic levels (and that’s a big if), maybe the Chinese government’s influence on creative decisions in Hollywood can be neutralized, but if not, we may be seeing a troubling impact that this pandemic will have on cinema for year and possibly decades to come.

On the bright side, there are silver linings that the pandemic year of 2020 has left on Hollywood, and that’s a much improved presence of diversity in this year’s awards season.  In a year without blockbusters taking up all the attention at the box office, smaller indie films were able to flourish.  And in particular, we saw a significant increase in movies made for and by people of color garner attention in ways that wouldn’t have happened in previous years.  This year’s Oscars, which had to extend much further out than usual into the following year, especially has benefitted from this.  Only a couple years after the Oscars So White controversy, we now have the most diverse field of nominees ever in the Academy Awards.  This includes the first time ever that more than one woman is nominated for Directing (including one who is the likely front runner in the overall race).  And the nominees run the whole gamut: white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and Middle Eastern.  It’s also a largely international assemblage, and one with a fair amount of first time nominees.  Had a more competitive, studio driven race occurred like any normal year, things might have been different, as more established movie stars may have been at the forefront.  It’s unfortunate that it had to take a pandemic to change the playing field to make things more diverse in the Awards race, but even still, it’s a change long overdue.  Sure, there are likely contenders in there as well, like David Fincher’s Mank (2020) and Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020), and even those movies represent a change in the industry as they were Netflix productions.  This streaming focused year put a spotlight on movies that otherwise would not have been able to thrive in a more competitive race, and that makes this year’s awards seem like such a turning point because not only does it represent a huge change with the movies that are getting recognized, and how we are able to access them, but also with the people involved in making them gaining attention in ways that they never have been able to before.

A more diverse field of nominees also means a lot more attention is being devoted to the stories they are telling in this very much changed industry.   The nominees of this year’s Oscars have largely one thing in common; they are telling stories that speak to their own experiences.  Unlike past years when movies like Green Book tackled racial injustice from a very white Hollywood perspective, this year we have movies about race and gender equality with uncompromised, personal perspectives that feel more truthful and less desaturated.  Shaka King’s Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) for instance tells the shocking story behind the betrayal that led to Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton’s assassination, and it doesn’t hold any punches with regards to how institutional racism played it’s part in leading to Mr. Hampton’s fate.  It’s a black American story told by a black American  filmmaker with the intent of sharing the truth about what happened, unvarnished to make it more acceptable to “mainstream” audiences.  The same holds true for more uplifting movies like Minari (2020), where director Lee Isaac Chung drew inspiration from his own childhood to create a movie about the Korean immigrant experience in rural America.  The pleasing thing about Minari is that Chung avoids the typical Hollywood clichés that you would often see in a movie of this type as it tries to be Oscar bait, and instead he creates a more honest portrait that trusts it’s audience.  The thing that I hope happens with this year’s Oscar race is that Hollywood begins to respect these kinds of perspectives more, and chooses to invest in voices that otherwise would’ve gone unnoticed.  The pandemic, as disruptive as it is,  did bring a wall down that enabled more interesting voices to be heard, and hopefully it grants more diversity in the future to projects that otherwise would have tapped people from Hollywood’s usually insular and homogenized community.

So, one year later and the movie industry is in a far different position than it was a year prior.  A mere 12 months ago, I was looking forward to a new James Bond movie, and a summer full of new blockbusters from the likes of Marvel, DC, Pixar and the like.  Since then, most of my consumption of movies has not been on the big screen but rather the small one in my living room, and nearly 80% of all those eagerly anticipated 2020 movies that I was hoping to see have still not been released.  It’s an era that I hope doesn’t repeat again, with the culture suddenly having to slam on the brakes in order to prevent an even more catastrophic result.  There have been some interesting things that have resulted from the last year that I do see as a silver lining.  Before 2020, I had never attended a Drive-In movie theater before, and now I have many times over, including earlier this month.  In addition, the already discussed breaking down of barriers in Hollywood due to the increased representation at this year’s Oscars is another positive sign.  But, it is also crucial that the film industry must bounce back in order to make that progress a long term effect post pandemic as a result.  Movie theaters are in dire need of being saved, and hopefully we can see them steadily recover over the course of this year, because it’s important that Hollywood needs to still see the more progressive North American audience as being the more worthwhile market to cater to, instead of falling into becoming a propaganda wing for a totalitarian regime like China.  Cinema has always been one of the world’s most valuable cultural exports, and it’s important that the power structure within the film industry that it is in the world’s best interest to increase representation and not suppress it.  The Covid-19 pandemic was a learning experience for all, and for Hollywood, it became a turning point the likes of which it has never seen before on nearly all fronts.  Normal may not look the same as it did before the storm happened, but we are beginning to see the clouds finally thin out.  Movie theaters are once again re-opened, and it’s up to us to decide whether or not we want it to be a part of the future of cinema.  I’ll be supporting my local theaters, and I encourage everyone else to do as well; safely of course.  Cinema is what we decide to make it, and in a post pandemic world, let’s make the movies better than they were before, with an eye to a hopeful and harmonious future.

Editorials

Finding Justice – The Long, Controversial Road to Completion for the Infamous Snyder Cut of Justice League

The decade of the 2010’s will no doubt go down as the era of the Super Hero movies.  No other genre captured the imagination of audiences around the world as much as it did in those 10 years, and the worldwide box office saw record breaking numbers thanks to movies with comic book origins.  In particular, Marvel Comics led the way with their seemingly indomitable line-up of interconnected films, all culminating in the release of the film Avengers: Endgame (2019) which capped a decades worth of on-going storylines and became the biggest box office hit of all time.  While this was going on, Marvel’s chief rival, DC Comics, was trying to repeat the same success with their line-up of super hero movies, though the success rate was not quite as consistent as what Marvel was churning out at the same time.  Though some movies performed well (2013’s Man of Steel and 2017’s Wonder Woman, for example) other films that were meant to go toe to toe with Marvel’s line-up were falling embarrassingly short.  Director Zack Snyder, an established filmmaker within the Warner Brothers stable who had successfully adapted complex comic books into movies like 300 (2007) and Watchmen (2009), was tasked with setting the overall tone for the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) with his Man of Steel being the bedrock on which they were going to build.  After Man of Steel’s success, the studio embarked on the next phase of their DC franchise, which was the first ever crossover meeting between two of their biggest Super Hero icons, titled Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).  Though expectations were high for BvS, the end result was lambasted by critics and left many comic book fans upset as well, which didn’t bode well for the future of the next project in the pipeline for Zack Snyder and crew; the ill-fated Justice League (2017).

The history of what happened behind the scenes of the Justice League movie has almost become more fascinating than the finished movie itself.  Essentially, the ultimate failure of Justice League 2017 was in the fact that it was a movie torn apart by a lot of second-guessing as well as quite a bit of hubris.  There was a deep sense of inferiority going on behind the scenes at the Warner Brothers lot, as they were seeing Marvel and their parent company Disney turning into this juggernaut before their very eyes.  Warner and DC had to go big, or otherwise concede defeat to longtime rivals, so a lot of big money went into building up the DC catalogue for the big screen.  Unlike Marvel however, DC decided to not develop their individual franchises first and instead began to build towards the big epic super hero team of the Justice League as their jumping off point.  Origin stories, a staple of the genre, were not to be bothered with, as the studio believed that these characters were already well established in the public’s eye up to this point.  Only Superman (played by Henry Cavill) was given a backstory on screen in Man of Steel.  By the time Batman v Superman came around, the road to Justice League was already in high swing.  Ben Affleck’s Dark Knight and Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman were introduced at this point and central to that film’s story, but Jason Momoa’s Aquaman, Ezra Miller’s Flash, and Ray Fisher’s Cyborg only got the briefest of Easter eggs.  The way that DC and Zack Snyder were setting up their universe was upsetting to fans, because it seemed like it was showing less reverence for the characters themselves and more showing how these character could make a hefty profit for Warner Brothers.  This, in turn, led to an underwhelming return for Batman v Superman, which despite making $300 million domestic, it was not enough to justify the enormous cost of it’s production, and performed under what Marvel made that same year with Captain America: Civil War (2016).  And this is where the second guessing began.

Justice League was already in the middle of production once BvS premiered, and the latter’s mixed reception did not sit well with Warner Brothers executives who were expecting DC to be competitive with Marvel.  Sadly, around this same time, tragedy struck Zack Snyder’s family, as he lost his daughter Autumn to a suicide.  Realizing that he needed to be there for his family, Snyder was granted a leave from the production by Warner Brothers.  This left the Justice League movie unfinished with a November 2017 release date looming.  Though Snyder had left a specific blueprint for his vision of the finished movie, Warner Brothers instead took the opportunity to “fix” what they perceived was the “mess” that Snyder had left them with and decided to bring someone in from the outside to change gears for the entire direction of the DCEU.  Joss Whedon, who had previously helmed the first two movies of the Avenger franchise over at Marvel, was hired on to complete Justice League in time for it’s release.  And not only was he completing what Zack Snyder already shot, but he was injecting his own style that was very contrary to what Snyder had been working on.  The new Justice League was lighter in tone, with each character being more quippy and irreverent (a Whedon trademark).  It also cut out a significant amount of story in order to meet a mandated two hour limit by the studio, something that would’ve been a struggle for Snyder, a filmmaker who likes to work long form.  So, despite delivering the movie on time, Joss Whedon’s Justice League did not feel complete.  It seemed like two movies with opposing tones mashed together and at odds.  And with costly reshoots to conform to the Whedon-esque style, the ballooned budget left little time and money to complete the complex visuals of the movie.  The finished film’s visual effects are notorious for their cheapness, especially the much lampooned Superman upper lip, because Henry Cavill was unable to shave off his mustache during shooting because of another movie.  Suffice to say, what should’ve been a shot across Marvel’s bow from DC, announcing them a powerful force in the genre, ended up a colossal embarrassment that further made them slide behind their rivals at the box office.

When Justice League crashed and burned at the box office, making less in grosses ($220 million domestic) than it’s estimated production budget ($300 million), people were immediately trying to perform an autopsy on what exactly went wrong.  For many DC comic book fans, this failure immediately reeked of studio interference, and it’s a fair assessment to make.  Warner Brothers wanted their movies to perform like a Marvel movie, so they second guessed their strategy and decided to make their DC movie more like a Marvel movie, hence the hiring of Joss Whedon.  But that didn’t stand well for fans of DC, because despite the gloominess of Zack Snyder’s filmmaking style, it does differentiate itself from Marvel.  It just further fueled the view that Warner Brothers and DC were falling way short of their rivals, who almost looked like they were brushing off the DC universe without a single thought.  A lot of fans online began to wonder what might have been different had Zack Snyder been allowed to complete his vision of Justice League.  Would it have been more coherent? More engaging?  Would it feel complete?  Would it even outdo Marvel?  The speculation was further fueled by statements by Zack Snyder after the film’s release that what ended up on the screen was not the movie he intended to make, despite him getting sole directorial credit.  Combined with people’s perceptions that they received an incomplete film in theaters, these new revelations from Zack Snyder led rise to the belief that there was a hidden away “Snyder Cut” of Justice League somewhere in the Warner vaults.  And when the internet gets a hold of some mysterious lost relic worth talking about, it often begins to take on a life of it’s own.  Suddenly in chat rooms and social media posts, people were speculating about the Snyder Cut, and why Warner Brothers was not making it public.  In turn, it became a trending topic, and DC fans began the petition #ReleasetheSnyderCut online in the hopes it would get the studio’s attention.  Unfortunately, like most things on the internet, something started with good intentions often can turn into something ugly.

The Release the Snyder Cut campaign began small with many DC comics fans spear-heading the march.  But, over time, as more time passed after the disappointing Justice League release, the Release the Snyder Cut campaign began to become a forum for something other than the movie itself.  It became a place to air grievances about the cultural divide in general, and in many cases, became pretty ugly.  Some online trolls used the Snyder Cut campaign to promote their often racist and misogynistic points of view, seeing Snyder’s DC films as the idealized presentation of their hyper-masculine worldview.  The Snyder Cut soon became a recruiting tool for more extremist views online, as it became a touchstone for what provocateurs proclaim as proof of “Cancel Culture” run amok.  The sad thing is, this toxic discourse began to cloud the Snyder Cut movement as a whole, and reflected badly on those who were trying to promote it.  Thus, pushback began against the Snyder Cut movement, because it was believed that it would be giving a victory to these online agitators who were trying to push their extremist points of view, which had nothing to do with the movie itself.  The truth is that these online extremists only usurped the movement, and were in no way involved in the actual organizing of the movement itself.  Their views were not reflective at all of what Zack Snyder actually believes, nor the organizers of the Snyder Cut campaign, nor the vast majority of those who support campaign itself.  Sadly, the Snyder Cut campaign became an unwilling participant in the ongoing and rather stupid “Culture Wars” that the media and the internet likes to formant, using anything as benign as Justice League to Dr. Seuss as a sign of societal decay and oppression, and as a means of pushing forth an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject itself.

Despite the weird turn that the Snyder Cut campaign took in the years since it launched, it did surprisingly capture the attention of Warner Brothers themselves.  Seeing how the campaign had taken on a life of it’s own, Warner’s decided to take another look at what was left on the cutting room floor with Justice League.  Indeed, there was a lot (almost double what ended up in the final movie), and it became possible for their to be enough content to see Zack Snyder’s original vision to completion.  The only question was, would it be worth it.  The answer came once Warner Brothers began their first stages of launching a streaming service, which would ultimately turn into HBO Max.  Naturally, if you are going to go big into the streaming wars, you need a project that is going to generate a lot of buzz for your service to justify the subscription price.  So, seeing the frenzy around the Snyder Cut, Warner Brothers saw it as a possible good investment to invite Zack Snyder back to complete his vision of Justice League.  This immediately grabbed everyone’s attention, because after years of fervent and sometimes ugly discussions online, we were given not just the confirmation that the Snyder Cut was real but that we were actually going to see it for ourselves in the near future.  This benefitted the studio, because it brought much needed buzz to their struggling launch of HBO Max, and it was able to take some of the heat off them, as they no longer looked like the bad guys for ruining the film in the first place.  Zack Snyder did graciously take back the role, but with the caveat that he be given full reign over the complete film.  This involved even further reshoots, as well as money to complete the half finished visual effects from the original movie.  But, in the end, he got what he needed, and the pressure was not as heated this time, because there was no danger of how it would perform at the box office.  This was something meant to bring people to HBO Max, and it no longer needed to be made to please everyone; it just needed to be unique enough to drive people to subscribe.

The timing for Zack Snyder’s Justice League to launch on HBO Max comes at an interesting time, because the fallout of the original movie is still causing a major rift within the studio to this day.  Ray Fisher, the actor who portrayed Cyborg in the movie, has had a particularly contentious relationship with Warner Brothers after his experience working on Justice League.  Part of why the Snyder Cut movement had wings for such a long time is because Fisher was championing Snyder’s work on the film and he stated that most of his performance is what got cut from the theatrical version.  Not only that, he has publicly called out Warner Brothers for what he considered to be a hostile working environment during the reshoots, going so far as to accuse some at the studio of racial discrimination.  In particular, he called out Joss Whedon for what he states were unprofessional and hostile behaviors directed to people on the set, including himself.  Further accusations were also leveled at DC Films execs Geoff Johns and Walter Hamada, stating that they continued to promote the toxic work environment around the making of the film, and ignored his past complaints.  While a lot of this is still under investigation, Fisher’s revelations have opened up a larger discussion about how cast and crew are treated on set, and in particular those who are people of color like Fisher.  He found it very peculiar that of all the characters in the movie, the one whose story got the axe the most was the one POC member of the Justice League team, whom Snyder originally intended to be the heart of the film.  Some of Fisher’s complaints about Whedon have also been given more weight, as past actresses on some of Joss’ TV programs have come forward with their own experiences of abuse on his sets.  Sadly, the contention between Fisher and Warner Brothers has severed any further creative relationship, as Ray has since been fired from reprising his role as Cyborg in a future Flash movie.  Couple this with the fact that Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill have already said farewell to their own roles as Batman and Superman, and Zack Snyder’s Justice League has now become a relic of a past DC universe that is no longer relevant.

But, for all the trouble that it took to finally get here, the Snyder Cut is a reality and is now playing on HBO Max.  And boy is it a behemoth.  Running 4 hours long (that’s right) it is a full hour lengthier than the next longest film in the genre (Marvel’s three hour long Avengers: Endgame) and double the original theatrical cut.  Zack Snyder originally intended this to be a two part saga, and for a while, he and Warner Brothers were looking at turning it into a limited series for HBO Max, until ultimately deciding to release it as one full block.  I watched the entire thing earlier this week, and in lieu of a full review, I can say that the Snyder Cut is better than the original theatrical cut of Justice League, but not a whole lot better.  The same flaws in the overall story are still there, and I think that Zack Snyder’s own stylistic indulgences continue to hamper whatever momentum he can get out of this story in general.  It’s very fundamentally flawed in that way, no matter how complete it now feels.  Even still, there are significant improvements in a lot of aspects of the movie.  The visual effects for one feel more complete and look much better.  Zack Snyder still relies a little too heavily on CGI, but thankfully the time and money was put into this version and it doesn’t have the cheap feel of the original anymore.  The villain, Steppenwolf, is also much better both in animation but also as an element of the story.  He now has motivation and he is far more menacing a threat now.  And perhaps the best addition of all is that we finally get Cyborg’s complete story, and see that Ray Fisher was indeed justified in his anger over how he was treated in the original cut of the film.  Zack Snyder may not be everyone’s cup of tea as a filmmaker, but as we’ve learned he is respected enough to be championed by his cast and crew and defended by his fans, so much so that he rode this goodwill towards seeing his vision to completion.  Not only that, but as shown in the final credits, we find that Snyder is able to finally put to rest a painful chapter in his life with a sense of triumph in the end.  He dedicated the finished movie to his late daughter Autumn with a sweet memorial in the credits.  In the end, the road to completing Zack Snyder’s ultimate version of the Justice League movie is going to stand as one of the most peculiar journeys any movie has ever taken.  Originally butchered in a moment of desperation by a studio, and using the director as a scapegoat for a mistake in direction that they set in the first place, Zack Snyder’s Justice League is no longer a mystery but now a reality.  It still may not be pretty, but it is triumph in a way to seeing a past cinematic injustice being righted.  Though the DC Universe has largely moved on from where Zack Snyder was intending it to go, which does feel awkward now as his Justice League ends with some sequel baiting, his full complete vision may indeed stand as the high point of DC films, at least with regards to it’s attempt to deliver the biggest possible DC movie possible.  In addition to the film finally being complete, we also have a finale to the tumultuous story of the Snyder Cut and it’s one that in some ways feels a bit triumphant to some people.  While there are still many problems surrounding the movie to address, especially in the larger cultural sense and with Warner Brothers corporate practices, we can finally see the full version of the movie for ourselves and judge it accordingly.  And for Zack Snyder, he can finally put to rest one of the worst chapters in his life and show the world what he wanted us to see.  The Snyder Cut is released; now we can finally move on from it.

Evolution of Character

Evolution of Character – Quasimodo

The city of Paris, France has many things that distinguish it among the great cities of the world.  The most noteworthy of it’s features would be the iconic and varied architecture of the city, ranging from medieval to modern.  Though there are many landmarks that bring tourists from all over the world to Paris, there is no doubt that many Parisians consider the heart of their beautiful city to be the Cathedral of Notre Dame.  Constructed over an 180 year period and completed in 1345, Notre Dame is widely considered to be the greatest medieval gothic structure ever created.  Known for it’s iconic twin tower façade, it’s extraordinary stained glass windows, and the far reaching tone of it’s massive bells, the Notre Dame Cathedral is a source of pride for the city of Paris.  But it may surprise many that Notre Dame has had to face destruction many times throughout it’s nearly millennia long history.  One of those times occurred in the post revolution France, after the long and straining Napoleonic Wars.  The city of Paris had long neglected it’s jewel of the city and Notre Dame had been left to rot and fall apart.  But, popular French author Victor Hugo wanted to change the minds of the apathetic Parisians and help them remember what Notre Dame meant to the city.  He set about writing a new epic novel centered around the Cathedral and the people of Paris, with the hope that it would remind people why it was important to have structures like it preserved.  The eventual novel, Notre Dame de Paris, was published in 1831, and it had the intended effect.  Hugo’s novel was immensely popular and it led to a restoration effort by the city to bring Notre Dame back to it’s former glory.  And while we have the novel of Victor Hugo’s to thank for helping Notre Dame survive a few more centuries, it also gave us some of literature’s most fascinating and unique characters as well.

The novel of course is referred to more by it’s English title, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and that’s because it’s most memorable character is the titular hunchback; named Quasimodo.  It’s said that when Hugo visited the crumbling Cathedral one day, he found carved in a stone on one of the towers a single word; Destiny.  From that mysterious, unknown message, Victor Hugo began to speculate who might have carved such a word, and what it might have meant.  Thus, he devised up the image of a deformed bell ringer who lived in the walls of the Cathedral itself.  The actual novel focuses on a number of characters, primarily the gypsy Esmeralda and the villainous Claude Frollo, a zealous agent of the Church.  Quasimodo actually has something of a minor presence in the book as a whole, but he is nonetheless pivotal to the story, and that’s why he’s become the icon on which the novel is mostly remembered for.  He’s also one of the reasons why the novel has become a popular source of adaptation in many different mediums, including film.  The Hunchback of Notre Dame has enjoyed many different film adaptations spanning the whole history of cinema, and the role of Quasimodo has been coveted by some of the most daring of performers.  For one thing, Quasimodo is a challenging role to undertake.  Portraying the deformed bell ringer requires a deep amount of soulfulness.  It can be very easy to go too over the top with the character and portray him in a cringy, exploitative way.  There is a fine line that must be walked in order to make Quasimodo feel like a genuine human being with a good soul like he is in the novel, and not the monster that he looks like on the outside.  The more subtlety the better, and as seen in his many different screen appearances, it usually comes down to the talents of the actor to give Quasimodo the sincerity that he needs.  What follows are some of Quasimodo’s most noteworthy appearances on the big and small screens, and as you’ll see, they include some performances that are iconic, as well as other that are notorious.

HENRY KRAUSS from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1911)

Even when cinema was in its infancy, Victor Hugo’s novel was seen as an ideal source for adaptation.  Naturally, the French were the first to commit the story of Quasimodo to film.  Though there was also an earlier adaptation from 1905, this 1911 version is the one that survives to this day.  Like many films of the period, it’s limited in what it can bring to the screen, and the same can be said about Quasimodo’s part within the film.  The 30 minute long movie is mostly centered around Esmeralda, and her persecution by the church, especially from the pious Frollo, who covets her for himself.  Quasimodo only factors in at the end of the movie, much like he does in the novel, acting as a somewhat unexpected guardian for Esmeralda.  The portrayal of Quasimodo by Henry Krauss is pretty limited, with the actor capturing the character as a lumbering creature that is more attack dog than man.  Some have said that the portrayal almost takes on a Frankenstein’s monster characteristics.  It’s certainly not the most sympathetic of portrayals of Quasimodo, but it’s also as much as you would expect in an early cinema retelling of the novel.  All the acting from the performers is broad and dramatic, so Krauss’ Quasimodo would be too.  And with the exaggerated, monster like mask that the actor has on, it’s easy to see how Quasimodo largely entered into the imagination of film-goers as something of a monster.  Not much sympathy given to the character here, but at the same time, he does act as the deliverer of justice like he does in the novel.  It’s a limited portrayal, but it would lead to many more who would thankfully explore the character more deeply in the year ahead.

LON CHANEY from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923)

Leave it to the “Man of a Thousand Faces” to take his own shot at portraying the iconic hunchback.  This version of Hunchback proved so popular in fact, that it actually turned Chaney into a full-fledged movie star, and helped to lead to his roles as the Wolf Man and the Phantom of the Opera years later.  Though Chaney does still lean into the monstrous side of the character, with his exaggerated and brooding performance, the movie does devote a bit more screen time to the character than he had seen before.  With more substantial budgets and better filmmaking tools, filmmakers were able to better capture the grandeur of Hugo’s novel, and it allowed for more screen time for Quasimodo in the story.  One moment that does get more focus in this version is the public lashing scene, where Quasimodo is tied down on a platform and pelted with garbage by the jeering public.  It’s a pivotal moment from the books because it bonds Quasimodo and Esmeralda, after she shows compassion for the tortured being.  Chaney portrays this moment very well and with tenderness, in stark contrast with the outward appearance that he has in the film.  Lon Chaney had the reputation of applying his own groundbreaking prosthetic make-up, and his version of Quasimodo is definitely other-worldy, if a bit over the top.  How he manages to perform underneath that mask of grotesquery is amazing, but it’s what he was best known for throughout his career.  What his version did more than anything was to elevate Quasimodo as a part of the overall story, and that in itself would influence most of the adaptations that followed.  If your movie is called The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it’s best that you know who your star attraction is, and Lon Chaney is one of the ones most responsible for turning Quasimodo into a screen icon.

CHARLES LAUGHTON from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939)

If Lon Chaney was the one who popularized Quasimodo on the big screen, Charles Laughton would be the one that gave him respectability.  In this classic 1939 Hollywood adaptation, we hear Quasimodo speak for the first time.  Granted, he is incapable of saying much; the ringing of the Cathedral bells have left him deaf and he was never afforded much of an education other than what his caretaker, Frollo, had given him.  But when he does, there is a great deal of compassion in his voice.  It’s clear that Laughton wanted to find the humanity in the character of Quasimodo, and not just portray him as some creature.  As a result, we get what many consider to be the greatest portrayal of the character ever put on screen.  Laughton had built a reputation of playing some of history’s most noteworthy figures, including winning an Oscar for his Henry VIII in the Alexander Korda production of The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933).  And while he had been a bit of a chameleon in the many different roles he portrayed, he never disappeared into a role quite like he did for Quasimodo.  The look that he created for the character would also prove to be influential, with softer features that that of Chaney’s grotesque version.  His rotund physique also would define the character, giving Quasimodo a less threatening outward appearance.  And even though Quasimodo is mentally stunted in many ways, Laughton does give him soulful reflection that shows that Quasimodo is indeed compassionate at heart, and aware of his own moral compass.  He even turns poetic in some of his reflections.  As a result, Laughton really captures the aspect of the tragedy behind the character, that despite his good heart and his drive to do the right things, he will never be able to be accepted by the society at large, just because of the way he looks.  Only Esmeralda (wonderfully played by Maureen O’Hara) sees the good soul within.  It’s one of the greatest performances in one of the greatest movies ever made, and a groundbreaking one for Quasimodo as a cinematic character.

ANTHONY QUINN from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1956)

This widescreen epic retelling may have much of the grandeur of the 1939 version, but none of it’s subtlety.  The Italian-French co-production is a flashy technicolor spectacle that features Anthony Quinn in the title role.  Quinn was an actor fond of disappearing into a role, though he often wished to do it on his terms.  And for the role of Quasimodo, he made the choice to portray the character his way.  This involved him foregoing a prosthetic hump on his back like Chaney and Laughton had used, and instead he created the effect of a hunchback by changing his own physical gait and posture.  This unfortunately has the effect of both not working as well as he thinks it does and also coming across as a bit insensitive to people with real physical difficulties.  The reason why past screen Quasimodos have opted to create a fake hunch on their backs was because it would genuinely affect the posture of their performance, allowing them to more effectively maintain the performance throughout.  Anthony Quinn’s non-hunch performance has the unintended effect of coming and going throughout the film, making the performance inconsistent.  Not only that, but Quinn’s mumbly performance has none of the soul of Laughton’s subtle portrayal, so it just feels like the actor is mimicking the handicap just to show off some range.  It’s exactly the wrong way of portraying the character.  The movie around him is not much better either, turning the story into a brightly colored melodrama.  Anthony Quinn has done much better work than this, and has disappeared into roles much more effectively.  But when your Hunchback doesn’t even consistently have a hunch in his back, it’s a sign that he made the wrong choices in how he would tackle this kind of character.

ANTHONY HOPKINS from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (TV MOVIE) (1982)

One of the more impressive portrayals of the character can be found in this surprisingly well crafted television adaptation.  Anthony Hopkins, better known at that time for his heralded work on the stage, takes on the role of Quasimodo with the same kind of reverence that Charles Laughton showed 40 years prior.  His version of Quasimodo certainly looks more ragged and deformed, but there is compassion behind his portrayal.  And this version definitely leans heavily in the tragic figure category.  The portrayal definitely fits the tone of this version of the story, which is surprisingly gritty for a television production.  In many ways, this version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame may be the closest to Hugo’s original novel in terms of tone.  It portrays the City of Paris as this wild, medieval place, with the Cathedral as it’s centerpiece.  Like in the book, the city becomes character in itself, covering societies both high and low, from the palace of the king to the ratholes of the sewers.  Past versions of Hunchback largely steered away from the darker elements of the story, but this version dives right in, and shows us the Paris that Victor Hugo envisioned.  Anthony Hopkins, as always, delivers a performance that matches that needed darker tone, without losing the endearing elements that keeps Quasimodo sympathetic.  It’s fitting that even in this version that creates a more broader and harsh tapestry, that Quasimodo is not overlooked, and is given life by yet another one of the greatest actors who ever lived.  It’s also a version of the story and the character that sadly doesn’t translate into too many other versions, as it’s often the case that in order to get around some of Victor Hugo’s more pointed societal critiques, namely towards the church establishment itself, that many adaptations lack some of the story’s bite.

TOM HULCE from DISNEY’S THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1996)

Apart from Charles Laughton’s iconic version, this is the portrayal of Quasimodo that likely first comes to mind.  Walt Disney Animation, in the midst of their Renaissance Era, made the controversial decision to take Victor Hugo’s classic story and give it a G-Rated spin, with a happy ending no less.  And while purists of the original story will have much to complain about, there is a lot to admire in Disney’s attempt.  It’s beautifully, and even hauntingly animated, and it features one of the best musical scores of any Disney film (yes, they turned it into a musical too).  In addition, it creates one of the most unique versions of Quasimodo ever put on screen.  The movie downplays many of Quasimodo’s handicaps (he speaks coherently, and even sings) and his deformity is softened to the point where he becomes more cute than grotesque.  But, Disney does a good job of capturing his social anxiety that has developed over years of isolation.  And the themes of prejudice, persecution, and overcoming tyranny are still maintained from Hugo’s original work, and most interestingly, this version sees the story unfold almost solely through Quasimodo’s eyes.  He is more central to the story here than any version before, and it gives us far more insight into his character.  A lot of credit goes to actor Tom Hulce for his soulful portrayal, although some of his dialogue may fall a bit too heavily in the cutesy, Disney-fied territory.  Hulce still manages to show a dynamic range of emotions through the character, and probably delivers the most epic reading of the line “Sanctuary!!” in history. For many recent generations, this has been the entry point for a lot of children to learn about Victor Hugo’s original story, the idea of not judging a book by it’s cover, as well as the importance of the Notre Dame Cathedral itself. While I’m sure this movie version may have appalled Victor Hugo himself if he were to see it, it nevertheless is an impressive attempt that is more mature than the average animated film and features one of the more interesting Quasimodos we’ve seen yet on the big screen.

MANDY PATINKIN from THE HUNCHBACK (TV MOVIE) (1997)

We have another version, made for TV, that does put Quasimodo more at the center of the story.  This one, unfortunately has none of the depth of character of Disney’s version, nor the subtlety and grit of Anthony Hopkin’s TV version.  It was a movie that clearly piggy-backed on the success of Disney’s version and was released only a year later.  Interesting enough, Mandy Patinkin was one of the actors who auditioned for Disney’s Quasimodo, but did not get it (apparently due to a disastrous audition).  It’s probably a good thing in the end because his portrayal of Quasimodo here is so bland and basic.  He acts through heavy prosthetics, but doesn’t have the dynamic screen presence of Lon Chaney to make his performance work through the make-up.  Instead, he just looks like he’s making weird faces throughout the movie.  The whole thing looks like a rushed production, despite having some solid talent on board; apart from Patinkin, the movie also has Selma Hayek as Esmeralda and Richard Harris as Frollo.  It’s says a lot that a version of this story looks so much more low rent than another TV version that was made 15 years prior.  Exactly how hard was it to get a better budget for this movie.  Even still, it comes down to how well the actors can work through the shortcomings, and though performers like Mandy Patinkin have shown they can be very good in many different things, it does not work out as well when they are given so little to work with.  It’s a mostly boring and forgettable TV feature that only stands out mostly in how much it falls short of past versions of the story put to screen.

What I think is very interesting about the character of Quasimodo in his evolution on the big screen over the years is how he has gone from an oddity within the fabric of a larger narrative, to someone who commands the story completely.  Each version of Quasimodo brings him more central to the story, to where he goes from a unruly creature in the silent movie version, to being the primary protagonist in an animated feature.  It’s a testament to the filmmakers and actors over the years who have tried so hard to find the humanity in the character that we have grown to empathize with him and even identify with him in many ways.  Charles Laughton’s groundbreaking version certainly laid the groundwork for giving the character new purpose, and Disney (despite straying very heavily from Victor Hugo’s original intent) has fully turned Quasimodo into not just an empathetic character, but also a hero.  It’s surprising that not many more adaptations have come in recent years.  It has been floated that Disney will likely do a live action remake of their animated film in the coming years, and rumor is that Idris Elba is looking at making a modern day re-imagining of the story with Netflix.  Despite all the many different interpretations of the story, there is one thing that has left a lasting legacy from this book, and that’s the reverence it gave to the Notre Dame Cathedral itself.  The Cathedral almost becomes this maternal presence in the story, giving Quasimodo a home and Esmeralda a sanctuary, and it’s helped to keep the real structure cherished in the hearts of people the world over.  When the Cathedral was nearly lost in a fire two years ago, it hit close to home even to people who have never been to Paris, and that is likely due to how much the story of The Hunchback of Notre Dame has permeated the culture.  Despite the cryptic message found by Victor Hugo all those years ago, there never was a bell ringer named Quasimodo, but there has always been a Notre Dame, and that in turn has given us an attachment to him as a character.  Quasimodo has become just as much of an icon as the Cathedral he called home and it’s been a pleasing thing to see him become treated more humanely with every new interpretation.

 

Movie Reviews

Raya and the Last Dragon – Review

If there was one thing that the pandemic year of 2020 has shown us about the craft of filmmaking, it’s the resilience that the industry somehow has managed to find within itself to keep things moving.  While distribution has been forever changed, shifting from theatrical to streaming over the course of the year, it has not deterred filmmakers and crew from continuing to do their jobs even while the pandemic was still raging on.  During the early days, the pandemic did grind everything to a sudden halt, and production was shut down for months.  But, adapting to the difficulties of the times, the film industry found a way to not only restart up quickly, but they managed to do so in a way that managed to keep everyone safe while on set, strictly following all the protocols needed to stop the spread of infection.  And it’s a good thing too, as keeping production on ice for the full length of this pandemic would have been devastating for Hollywood.  There needs to be a constant flow of production and output to keep this town alive, and putting everything on hold not only put thousands of people out of work, it creates a backlog jam as  more and more projects are delayed.  While on set production has it’s own demands that needed time to be put in place, the one part of the film industry that managed to continue full steam ahead without delay was animation.  Considering that an animated movie is primarily constructed with the aid of computers, it was a sensible move that many animation studios shifted to remote work, having animators and other staff complete their work from the comfort of their own home.  And because of that, animation has managed to not only survive in this pandemic effected economy, but even thrive.

One of the clearest signs of this has been the surprising box office success of Dreamworks Animations The Croods: A New Age (2020).  Though it’s may not be reflected in the total box office numbers (which are low compared to animated films from Dreamworks in years past), but The Croods sequel’s resilience in the pandemic stricken box office ever since it’s Thanksgiving weekend release has gotten some notice.  It has remained a Top 5 fixture at the box office ever since it’s release, including several weekends at the top, and even outperformed the heavily hyped Wonder Woman 1984 (2020).  And a large part of why this has been the case is because the market still remains strong for family entertainment, which bodes well for the theatrical industry.  It’s an encouraging sign that a movie like The Croods can still pull in a $50 million plus gross even with the biggest markets of New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco still on lockdown.  Dreamworks was able to benefit from the shortened theatrical window deal that AMC and Universal put together, so you can expect that the digital rentals for The Croods helped to make that movie a further financial hit.  But the fact that even with the streaming option Croods still performed well at the box office has to be a positive signal that a recovery for theatrical exhibition is likely to happen once the pandemic is over.  Because of this promising development, it has given animation studios the confidence to continue to move full steam ahead, even though the pandemic is still not yet over.  The studios are cautious, depending on multiple platforms for release in order to give people safe options, but they are no longer holding back in a wait and see game anymore.  And that is a positive sign as the king of all animation studios, Disney, has now delivered their newest animated epic to both theaters and streaming; Raya and the Last Dragon (2021).

Raya and the Last Dragon is a definite departure from the fairy tale trappings of past animated films from Disney.  Here, the story centers in a mystical realm that’s based heavily on Southeast Asian cultures.  There is a kingdom called Kumundra that encircles a mighty river that is shaped like a dragon, and each part of this kingdom is named after a different part of a dragon’s body: Tail, Talon, Spine, Heart and Fang.  500 years ago in the past, a sentient plague known as Druun began to spread across the land, turning every living being into stone.  The kingdom however was saved thanks to dragon magic that reversed the Druun’s curse and restored life to all the humans, but left the dragons still cursed in stone.  Many years later, the leader of the Heart Kingdom, Lord Benja (Daniel Dae Kim) seeks to restore unity between the warring nations of Kumundra.  However, the different nations want the power of the last dragon stone, which is housed in the Heart Kingdoms’ fortress, for themselves.  A fight ends up leaving the dragon stone shattered, which causes the Druun to reemerge.  Lord Benja succumbs to the curse after sacrificing his life to save his daughter Raya (Kelly Marie Tran).  Six years later, a grown Raya seeks to reverse the Druun’s presence in the land by finding the last living dragon.  Searching all the way to the end of the Dragon’s Tail, she finds the dragon Sisu (Awkwafina), who can’t make the Druun go away herself, but does in fact have have the ability to restore the stone.  So, Raya and Sisu embark on a mission to find the other shards of broken Dragon stone, and they are helped along the way by different members of the Kumundra tribes; a young fishing boat captain in the Tail region named Boun (Izaac Wang) a baby Talon girl named Noi (Thalia Tran) who survives as a con artist, and the sole surviving member of the Spine tribe, Tong (Benedict Wong).  Meanwhile, the daughter of the Fang chieftain, Namaari (Gemma Chan), a past rival of Raya’s, is also hunting for the dragon stone shards, and is ready to take Raya down in order to posses them.  It soon becomes a race to see if they can outrun the curse of the Druun while also learning to trust one another in order to survive together.

The story of Raya and the Last Dragon’s will no doubt be a fascinating one in Disney’s history.  Unlike internal struggles that plagued the productions of movies like The Black Cauldron (1985) or The Emperor’s New Groove (2000), Raya had to face the uphill battle against an external source of production woes, namely Covid-19.  Originally set for a November 2020 premiere, Raya was delayed like everything else, but not too far back.  It is kind of remarkable that they managed to put a film this complex together through a remote network, because there’s nothing about the look and feel of this movie that would indicate that there were any production woes at all.  Raya and the Last Dragon is an extraordinary polished final product that stands up to the high standards of Disney Animation.  Many years from now, you would find it hard to believe that this movie was made outside of the high tech confines of Disney’s Burbank studio and in the home offices of it’s technicians.  The Disney Animation team went above and beyond what anyone would expect and crafted what may be in fact one of their most visually stunning movies ever.  Given that they had a couple of extra months to work with probably helped, but even still, the necessities of working remotely still made it a challenge for the filmmakers.  Directed by Disney vet Don Hall (Big Hero 6) and animation newcomer Carlos Lopez Estrada, the movie has ambition in it’s world building that really sets it apart from other Disney animated features.  Though fantasy elements like dragons and magic are nothing new to them, the complexity of a richly detailed culture that is unique to this story is really an impressive thing that the movie manages to accomplish, and do so without leaving the audience overwhelmed.  Though the Southeast Asian influence is unmistakable, the fact that they don’t tie it to any specific source, and instead use it as an influence to inform this completely fictionalized world is something incredibly fascinating to watch explored within this movie.

The world of Kumandra is without a doubt the star attraction of this movie.  The Disney Animation team did a marvelous job of crafting a world that is both familiar and wholly original.  There are so many great ideas for portraying the different cultures of the kingdom of Kumandra that make every new scene of exploration in this world fascinating to watch.  Each kingdom lives in it’s own biome, which helps to define the character of that place.  The Tail kingdom is a dry desert wasteland, marking an ends of the earth kind of feel.  Talon is a cosmopolitan waterfront community that is reminiscent of river markets found in places like Bangkok, Singapore and other major ports of Southeast Asia.  Spine is a rugged outpost in snowy mountain forests, with people equally as rugged.  But the most impressive visuals are saved for the prosperous Heart and Fang kingdoms.  The Heart of Kumandra sits literally at the peak of a massive, donut shaped mountain that is without a doubt the movie’s most striking image.  Southeast Asia, particularly on the South China Sea coastlines, have these striking rocky monoliths all over the place, but Raya goes the extra mile into the surreal by putting a massive hole in the center of one and placing a palace on top like a crown.  Not to be outdone, the Fang kingdom’s palace is another striking creation, sitting on a massive, rice field terraced mountain top with walls and towers of rigid geometry, similar to the temples and pagodas found in Myanmar, Thailand and Laos.  What the movie does really well is make this land feel authentic and lived in, without wasting too much time on world building.  It doesn’t dwell long in the details, and instead just lets the audience become immersed in the sights, sounds, and even smells of Kumandra.  Of all the things that the movie does, this kind of immersive escape into another world is it’s most impressive act.

The movie also features a strong cast to inhabit the film’s world as well.  Much like what they did with Moana (2016) a couple years back, their casting choices for the voices of these characters is informed more by a regional connection to this world, and less tied down to any specific nationality.  The voices in this movie literally come from all over the world, but they all have ancestry that connects them to the southeast Asian cultures that inspired the world of Kumandra.  Among the principle cast, the film manages to gain great chemistry from it’s stars Kelly Marie Tran and Awkwafina as Raya and Sisu.  Tran, who is making the jump over here from her time in the Star Wars universe, was surprising not the original voice for the main character.  Originally, Canadian actress Cassie Steele was set to play the part, but was replaced sometime last year with Tran.  No reason has been given why, but Kelly Marie Tran does a fine job of picking up the role and making it hers.  I especially love the energy she gives in her performance, making Raya pop on screen in a way she might not have otherwise.  The voices of Raya’s other companions are also very endearing as well.  A particular favorite of mine is Benedict Wong’s performance as Tong.  Some of his line readings spoken through his tough guy delivery had me giggling quite a bit.  Gemma Chan also brings a nice bit of complexity to her role as Namaari, helping her to become more than just a stock antagonist.  I also want to spotlight the incredible efforts of the character animators, particularly the ones who animated the dragon Sisu.  It’s got to be a challenge whenever an animator has to bring life to a vocal performance from a comedian like Awkwafina.  Comedians perform in a way that is different from other actors and to translate that into an animated character that looks nothing like the performer themselves can’t be easy.  Disney’s been in this place before when trying to match the zaniness of Robin Williams or Eddie Murphy.  Thankfully, not only do the animators manage to match the comedic tone of Awkwafina’s performance, but they managed to make Sisu an amazingly dynamic presence on screen.  It’s another remarkable marriage of vocal performance and animation that stands up strong with the comedic legends that have preceded Awkwafina’s Sisu in the Disney Canon.

With stellar visual and animation, and a lively vocal cast, this movie has all the makings of an all time classic for the studio.  And while it definitely is above average, I also have to say that it does fall a bit short of legendary status as well.  Raya is top tier when it comes to visuals, and it features a surprisingly rich story line as well.  But, what the movie could have used is another polish of the screenplay itself.  The script was written by Qui Nguyen and Adele Lim, the latter just coming off the success of Crazy Rich Asians (2018).  While the duo do deserve credit for holding together the complexity of this kind of world-building and offer some interesting character development as well, some of the dialogue in the movie is a bit trite and uninspired.  In particular, the movie doesn’t have the comedic oomph that other Disney classics have illustrated in the past.  There’s one bit in particular about shopping with credit that feels very much out of place and shoehorned into this movie and it took me out of the experience for a bit.  Some jokes do land, but they are few and far between, and I feel that a another punch up (possibly with a more comedy minded writer) could have saved some of the pitfalls of this movie.  That being said, the actors do their best to make what is on the page as good as it can be.  Tran and Awkwafina’s chemistry goes a long way towards making their scenes together work.  I also think that one unfortunate thing about the movie is that it leaves out more time to delve deeper into these characters’ stories as well, and in particular, Raya herself.  Raya changes very little through the course of the movie and when I thought it would come to a point where she ultimately learns an important lesson, it never happens.  She’s sadly one of the less interesting heroines I’ve seen in recent Disney movies; not bad overall, but far less engaging than say Moana or Elsa as a central character.  These shortcomings hold back what otherwise could have been one of Disney’s most impressive films ever, and while no where near a failure, it nevertheless feels a bit disappointing overall.

Even still, Raya and the Last Dragon is still a movie well worth seeing.  If it’s safe and accessible, this movie is preferably worth going out to the movie theaters to watch.  This is a big, epic widescreen kind of movie that really needs the theatrical experience to really do it justice.  Thankfully, this movie is getting a theatrical run, but it’s limited in scope given that the pandemic is still ongoing, despite encouraging steps in the right direction.  Theaters are still closed here in LA, so I ventured way out of town to visit the Mission Tiki Drive-In once again, but it was worth the drive because I got to see it the way it was intended; on a giant screen.  Disney also has made the movie accessible through streaming on Disney+, with the Premiere Access pay-for-view feature that they used last year for Mulan (2020).  However, unlike Mulan, Raya gives you a theatrical option, so if you accept the risk, I strongly recommend watching it in a theater because one, it’s looks better than on a TV and two, it’s a better value.  I do think that some of the shortcomings of the screenplay do hold it back, but it’s made up for with a richly detailed world and some of the best animation that has ever come from Disney, and that’s saying a lot.  It’s also nice that it’s a new movie from them that is something new and original, and not a sequel.  It’s also a vast improvement over the lackluster Frozen II (2019).  It’s not anywhere near the top of Disney’s animation output, but it’s a worthy inclusion into the ranks of the esteemed Disney canon.  I can see Raya becoming a beloved classic for many and it will deserve that honor in many ways.  I will especially love to see how well the Southeast Asian community embraces the film, and it will be wonderful to see children from those communities respond to watching their culture be reflected finally in a Disney film.  That’s one of the great things about Disney’s drive to portray so many different cultures in their films; it gives a voice and identity to cultures that otherwise go unheralded in animation, and it also educates those of us outside of the culture to the wonderous art, food and people that make up those communities.  It’s kind of interesting that the plot of this movie centers around a society broken apart by the ravages of a plague, and it’s all about bridging all of our differences in order to fight against a common threat that affects us all equally.  It’s ultimately a movie about a society finding a way to heal itself, and for being one of the biggest new movies in what will be a post-pandemic world, Raya and the Last Dragon’s arrival right now couldn’t be any more pivotal to our times as they are right now.

Rating: 8/10