Meet The Robinsons
The term ‘screw-ball’ applied to a new form of
comedy which became fashionable during the 1930s in America.
In a ‘screw-ball’ comedy seemingly adult people
behaved, in what society at the time thought, was a completely
irresponsible and irrational way. Films such as ‘The
Thin Man’, ‘My Man Godfrey’ and ‘Bringing
Up Baby’ were to epitomize this new comedic style. Practically
any movie directed by Preston Sturges, with whom the genre
is most closely associated, contained elements of this ‘mad-capped’
humor. With America’s entry into World War II, Hollywood
had to get ‘serious’, and ‘screw-ball’
comedy fell out of favor. Peter Bogdanovich was to revive
the style in his popular 1972 tribute movie ‘What’s
Up Doc?’, but since then ‘screw-ball’ comedy
has remained dormant. That is, up until now. Walt Disney’s
new computer-animated cartoon ‘Meet The Robinsons’,
made in-conjunction with Buena Vista Pictures and directed
by Stephen J. Anderson, is an hilarious and exhilarating romp
created in the classic ‘screw-ball’ tradition.
Poor little orphan boy Lewis is a brilliant inventor, but
when his latest project, a Memory Scanner, is stolen by the
sinister ‘Bowler Hat Guy’, Lewis has just about
given up any hope of ever seeing it again, until a mysterious
stranger called Wilbur Robinson whisks him off in a fancy
time machine. Together they try to track down the ‘Bowler
Hat Guy’ in the future. However, once arriving in the
future, and meeting the rest of the wacky Robinson Family,
you can give up any attempt to make sense out of this movie.
Occasionally the movie will stop to re-cap events, just to
keep you up-to-speed, but these up-dates are just as illogical
as the movie itself. There is no point in trying to figure
out the movie, just go with the insane humor and frenzied
situations in which everybody finds themselves. The movie’s
visualization of the future seems based on a demented form
of Art Deco, while, for once, the computer-generated characters
are not grotesque. Instead, they are actually quite endearing,
if not life like. The producers of this cartoon have made
an instant ‘classic’, but what intrigues me is
that the Disney Organization no longer appears intent on making
cartoons for children. Since the studio’s ‘renaissance’,
possibly starting in 1991 with ‘Beauty and the Beast’,
the company seems more interested in re-creating, in cartoon
form, genres from the ‘Golden Years of Hollywood’,
which have nostalgic appeal for a much older generation. By
all means, play this DVD cartoon for your children, but don’t
be surprised if they stare at the screen in bewilderment,
while you roll around the floor with uncontrollable laughter.
Fur
Diane Arbus (1923-1971) was a New York photographer. After
a successful career as a fashion photographer she retired
from that milieu to concentrate on an ‘art’ career.
Her photographs of social ‘outsiders’ combined
gloomy, disturbed themes with a quiet, factual attention,
allowing the viewer to maintain a certain distance from the
images. Arbus made a point of getting to know her models,
and with their permission photographed them in many intimate
situations. Her aim was not to make philosophical statements,
but to note a multi-faceted world. Her work was not photographic
documentation. It depicted psychological contexts. Focusing
on the private world, rather than the social reality of the
‘outsider’. Arbus committed suicide in 1971, but
her work was to enjoy a posthumous fame as its sensibilities
suited the feminist politics of the 1970s and 80s. Director
Steven Shainberg does not claim that his film ‘Fur’
is an accurate depiction of Diane Arbus’ life. In-fact,
he refers to it as “an imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus”.
The film comes with a disclaimer, which states: “What
you are about to see is a tribute to Diane. A film that invents
characters and situations that reach beyond reality to express
what might have been Arbus’ inner-experience on her
extraordinary path”. What the film actually presents
is a strange ‘free adaptation’ of the ‘Beauty
and the Beast’ legend, which acts as a metaphor for
the psychological experiences that pushed Arbus into her work.
Bored by both her job as a photographer’s assistant
and her stifling marriage, Arbus begins fantasizing about
the mysterious tenant who lives in the apartment above her.
As Arbus’ relationship with this circus ‘freak’
grows, he opens up for her New York’s sub-culture of
dwarfs, giants and geeks, and Arbus is totally enthralled
by all she meets. Eventually, her highly unusual lover demands
from her a harrowing service. By concentrating on this allegorical
love story, Steven Shainberg’s movie does not really
provide any great insights into Arbus’ life or work.
By suggesting that her photography was motivated by some encounters
with a collection of abnormal and grotesque ‘outsiders’,
the movie tends to trivialize her art to some extent. However,
as an exercise into ‘dreamlike’ symbolism, the
movie does have some amazing moments. Nicole Kidman has always
presented a ‘cool’ persona in her films, and in
‘Fur’ she is positively glacial. Nicole goes through
the motions, but she appears as far removed as she can possibly
get. Nicole projects as much warmth as a frozen lamb chop.
On-the-other-hand, bogged down by an elaborate furry costume,
Robert Downey Jr. is pretty much restricted to body gestures
and eye movements. Downey’s rich, dark chocolate eyes
have been known to send many female admirers hearts aflutter,
and in this movie they are at their dewy best. Anger, sorrow,
joy, compassion, and a wealth of other emotions, pass through
them, giving the movie its only light and shade. Downey’s
performance is the centre-piece of the film, and without him
it would not be as half interesting. Not completely satisfying
as either fantasy or biography, Steven Shainberg’s movie
is, never-the-less, a fascinating attempt at a ‘surrealistic’
love affair, with some disturbing erotic undertones.
Freedom Writers
Stories about noble teachers attempting to instill knowledge
into their reluctant students have been around since the cinema
was invented. God only knows what possessed Hilary Swank to
think she had anything new to offer this tired old genre.
Written and directed by Richard Lagravenese, and with Hilary
herself starring, and also acting as executive producer, the
movie ‘Freedom Writers’ is about as boring as
movies can sometimes get. Hilary should have put her money
into something a bit more commercially viable.
