The Hobbit, a Highly Expected Pleasure

Before I begin my review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, let me preface my opinions with a little biography.  When I was ten years old, my father began reading The Hobbit aloud to me and my sisters.  I got so into the story that during the day while he was at work I would sneak the book off the shelf, take it up to my room and read ahead so I could find out what happened next.  I fell in love with Tolkien's books that year, and I have loved them ever since.  I have read The Hobbit, all the Lord of the Rings, the appendixes, the Silmarillion, and the Book of Unfinished Tales.  My current project is to read the Book of Lost Tales.  In short, I am a Tolkein NERD! As soon as the movies came out, my family watched them, even though my sisters and I were so young my parents fast forwarded through some of the battle sections because they were too violent, and they remain to this day, my favorite movies of all time.  Therefore, when I heard that the Hobbit was being made into a trilogy of movies, I was both ecstatic and a little hesitant.  I have such a love for the stories that a movie rendition always makes me a bit nervous, because movies are never as good as the book.  I tell you this because I want you to know where I am coming from in this review; a decent all though by no means complete knowledge of the book and a love of the original story.

That out of the way... on to the review.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (hereafter referred to simply as "the Hobbit") was FANTASTIC! I walked out of the theatre stunned, totally convinced that it was the best movie I had ever seen.  A little less than a week, and a 3D showing later, I am still willing to hold by that statement.  The visuals, story, and acting all came together to form a movie that will not disappoint die hard fans.  That being said, my statement at the beginning should begin to make more sense.  I am very familiar with the story, and have a certain understanding of the workings of the world in which the story takes place.  Thus, for me, the film was incredible because it was able to tap into that rich trove of lore and history.  I cannot, however, speak to the novitiate, the uninitiated into the realm of Middle Earth.  There might be aspects of the story that move too fast or too slow for those who are unfamiliar with Middle Earth.  Thus, I recommend the movie with this caveat: if you do not know the story, do not blame me if you do not find it enjoyable.  For all the other Tolkein nerds out there, who have learned to speak elvish and have the appendices memorized and can name all thirteen dwarves in the company without batting an eyelash, read on! This review is for everyone, but most especially for you.

First, let me say that The Hobbit was a visually beautiful movie.  Much lighter than Lord of the Rings (LOTR) both in narrative and visually, the filmmakers make excellent use of the beautiful New Zealand scenery.  Wide scale panoramic shots give the movie the sense of grandeur that one experiences in LOTR, but unlike its predecessors, The Hobbit is shot with a saturated lens that makes the colors more vibrant, a trait that is used exceptionally in shots of Rivendell, and in sunrises and sunsets that figure prominently into the film.  Not only does the movie present an overall beauty and grandeur, but it also creates some beautifully iconic images in its presentation of action.  Silhouettes of the characters are often used for great dramatic effect, and some of the images look as if they could have sprung from the drawings in the book itself at the beginnings of the chapters.  One of the most powerful uses of this technique occurs in the goblin court where Gandalf uses a bright flash to blind the goblins and help the dwarves escape.  In the film, directly after the flash, only Gandalf's silhouette can be seen, sword in one hand, staff in the other, hat on top of everything, looming in the smoke and darkness.  It is a stunning moment, a beautiful visual representation of how the scene always appeared in my mind, and I believe in the minds of every reader of the book.  The same technique is used to great effect in shots of the whole company, where each of the dwarves is distinctively unique, Bilbo Baggins a head shorter than everyone else, and Gandalf looming over everyone either at the front or the back of the line.  There is so much to appreciate visually in the movie that I could discuss it for hours, but half of you have probably already stopped reading, and the other half is getting bored, so I will get a move on to other aspects of the movie.

Acting wise, the movie was stelar.  Martin Freeman presents a very convincing Bilbo Baggins.  When I first heard that he was going to be playing Bilbo Baggins I was so thrilled because I had seen his work in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and his performance as John Watson in the BBC TV show Sherlock, and if you combine Arthur Dent with Watson, you pretty much have Bilbo Baggins.  He does an excellent job of portraying the hobbit in all his fear and lovableness, while adding a depth of development and personality to the character beyond what was even conveyed in the book.  The result is a Bilbo Baggins who grows throughout his adventures from a Baggins to a burglar, a hobbit who is able to transcend his fear because of his care for his friends.  Richard Armitage also turns in a fantastic performance as Thorin Oakenshield, the dwarf prince attempting to regain his kingdom.  In the book, I never understood the devotion the dwarves, and eventually Bilbo had for Thorin; he always struck me as a bit of a stuck up prig.  In the film, however, his pride conveys a sense of majesty rather than self absorption, and the dwarf prince is a grand figure rather than a pompous one.  An excellent performance from returning actors Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis completes the film, as both actors works on what must have been primarily green screen, one to properly complete the proportions of wizard compared to the dwarves and the hobbit, the other reprising his role as Gollum in all his CGI wonder.  Serkis in particular turns in a stunning performance, advancements in the CGI technology making the actor's expressions more clearly visible on the computer generated character.  All in all, the entire cast did a fantastic job of bringing Thorin and Company to life on the screen.

Story wise, I will begin by saying the film was one of the best book to screen adaptations I have ever seen.  By this I mean that Peter Jackson and the screenwriters did a brilliant job maintaining as much of the original story as possible while still creating a film that was fast paced and watchable.  They managed to include many of the original lines from the story in a way that was humorous and memorable.  Hobbit readers will rejoice to know that the story of Bullroarer Took, a hobbit who was so large he could ride a real horse, was included in the story, as is Bilbo Baggins' exchange of "good mornings" with Gandalf.  The major changes to the original story came in the form of the addition of a new major antagonist; the goblin Azog the Defiler, and in the inclusion of the actions of the White Council.  It is in the role of Azog that I have found Tolkein purists most upset; they do not like the inclusion of a new character who does nothing more than move the story at a more rapid pace, however, as a critic, I can understand the choice.  It is very difficult to transition a story from page to screen, even more so something as complex and well loved as The Hobbit.  Movies require a faster, more driven pace, so I am willing to overlook a couple of small changes for the sake of the film.  All in all, however, this movie was one of the most faithful book to screen adaptations I have ever seen (which is probably why it ends up being three movies long).

There were a couple of small disappointments with the movie.  One of the most common complaints I have heard has to do with the CGI in the film.  There are two moments that particularly stand out.  First, is the goblins under the Misty Mountains.  These are all done with CGI, and the result is very different from anything produced in the original trilogy.  My response to this criticism is that if one reads the Hobbit, and then LOTR, one sees a stark difference between the goblins in one and the orcs in the other anyway.  The species under the Misty Mountains is entirely different from those that play such a heavy role in LOTR.  However, the obsessive use of CGI does tend to make the Misty Mountain goblins less scary than the original LOTR orcs, as they seem less human and less real.  There is really no way to substitute for human movement, a fact that Hollywood producers would do well to realize.  The other flaw with the CGI was in the eagles.  I was always disappointed at the stilted portrayal of the eagles in the original LOTR, so I was not expecting much from the CGI, and I was pleasantly surprised at how well they turned out.  There was, however, a difficulty with the eagles talons.  Not to seem nit-picky, but when everything else in the movie was so well done, it was strange that the talons on the eagles would end up looking so fake compared to everything else.  A bit of a disappointment, but again minor in comparison with the quality of the rest of the film.  The one other factor that annoyed me personally was Kate Blanchet's return as Galadriel.  I always liked the character in LOTR, and was excited when I heard that The Hobbit would be incorporating extra characters into the White Council sequences.  I was underwhelmed, however, with her performance: she seemed a bit stiff and awkward, and her face looked like it was made of plastic.  I realize it is ten years later, but I would rather see age lines on the actress' face than think I was looking at some sort of elf Barbie.

No film is perfect, however, and the flaws that I noticed within the film were more than made up for by the overall quality of the product.  The attention to detail is stunning, the visuals are amazing and the acting superb.  I could go on for pages about the symbolism of the story (Bilbo's sword looks markedly different from the Sting in LOTR because it is missing the elvish runes that spell out the name: at the beginning of the story the sword is unblooded and unnamed, rather like Bilbo who is untried and has not yet found himself. I look forward to seeing what Peter Jackson intends to do with that down the road), but I really don't have the time right now.  Perhaps I will come back later and write a second review going into just the symbolism, or perhaps I will come back later and edit this review to include that aspect.  For now, let me conclude by saying this.  Perhaps in critical circles the movie will not do well.  People will rant about it being too long or too short, or criticize the CGI or negatively compare the story to the original LOTR trilogy.  I do not mind.  For me, however, I think the Hobbit was a fine movie, perhaps the best I have ever seen.  I think this is because, even though I am an English major and love looking for the darkness and the reality behind the stories, at the end of the day, what I really want is a fairy tale.  I want a story that picks me up out of reality and throws me into a world of sparkling magic and gleaming unreality.  In the end, what I really love in a story is "once upon a time"... "in a hole in the ground there lived... a hobbit."

Well, back to reality.

Give me time... TIME!

Alright all, so I know that all six or seven of my faithful readers out there are wondering when the review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be ready... I am working on it.  I will likely begin writing the review over the weekend, and finish it after a second viewing of the show, hopefully next Tuesday.  So expect a review some time around then. A bit of a first taste, here is what I said on the Fandango review.

To all the people out there looking at what is coming out around Christmas and contemplating which movie to go see, the answer is simple: GO TO THE HOBBIT!  This movie is a beautiful compilation of incredible story, fantastic acting, beautiful cinematography, and tasteful CGI.  What makes this film so amazing is the fact that story comes first.  It remains remarkably true to the book, with much of the script coming straight from the pages of Tolkein's classic.  What liberties that were taken were mainly functional, designed to give the film a sense of urgency and movement more suited to a film than to the rambling beauty of the book.

Well, back to reality... for a while.

Action Movies

Hello World!
It is good to be back.  Sorry I haven't written in a while; school is nuts, and life is even crazier.  Do to both those factors, todays post will naturally be pretty short, since I have a limited amount of time before I need to get back to other writing.  So, quick overview of the a couple movies that either came out over the summer, or recently on DVD, and what I view as the predominant problem in American action movies today.

So the idea occurred to me when I was watching the movie The Bourne Legacy earlier this summer, and was completely confirmed when I watched Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol;  "WHY DOES EVERY ACTION MOVIE HAVE TO HAVE A RIDICULOUSLY LONG AND COMPLETELY USELESS CAR CHASE SCENE?!?!"  I realize that car chases are one of the iconic parts of American action movies, however, do they have to take a full ten minutes of driving around, switching vehicles, going over various terrains, shooting, dust storms, tracker devices, and random car thefts to further the plot of the story?  Perhaps the better question might be "WHAT PLOT?!?!"  Action movies have degenerated into a long series of car chases, fight sequences, and dramatic tension without creating any character development or cohesive story arc.  Special effects are great and car chases can be nice, the problem is when the entire industry is too busy playing with CG toys and dramatic effects to remember that a film is supposed to be, first and foremost, a story.  When I get up out of my seat after a movie, I want to spend the next week thinking about what happened in the story and how much I enjoyed the characters and plot, not to walk away thinking, "Well, that was fun, and a colossal waste of the last two hours."

I am not attempting to bash on action movies in general.  I love the genre; I think that a good action movie can be as thought provoking and well written as any dramatic film or small budget movie, if the producers are willing to take the time and effort to make it a worthwhile product not just a visual effects fest with no substance.  This is my fundamental problem with most blockbusters; they are lacking in substance.  While films should be entertaining and fun, they can still be profound or insightful.  We go to films to escape reality certainly, however we also go to be told that a story can end well, that life is not necessarily meaningless, and that a person can overcome their personal and external problems eventually.  To do this, the characters have to be complete enough that the audience can both like them and identify with them, which is impossible if the characters are not properly developed and if the story is not compelling.

Well, that is my rant for the day.  Be looking out for a post in about a month on The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey.  I can hardly wait!

Well, back to essays and reality.

Back to School Update

Hello readers,
Sorry about not getting anything posted for a while; the last few weeks of summer were CRAZY, and I didn't have time to get anything written.  Now with school starting again, my opportunities for both reading and writing are going to get even smaller.  I cannot say for sure when my next post will be, but I hope to maybe have something for you by mid October.  If not, I can only guarantee that I will be writing a review and analysis of The Hobbit: Unexpected Journey when it comes out in December.  Other than that, I have nothing for you today, so keep reading, and keep watching.
Well, back to reality,
Megan

Rants and Raves 1

Summer is a great time of year.  School is out, so a good portion of the younger population is left with plenty of extra time and little to fill it with.  Thus, summer has become the season of entertainment, young people filling their time with movies, new and old, books, television, and music.  I am no exception to this, although this summer I have made an effort to fill my hours with work as well as play, I have had the opportunity to devote quite a bit of time to reading, and watching movies.  In light of this, I have decided to start a new section of the blog which I am entitling Rants and Raves.  This section will contain my reviews of the books and movies which I have seen lately.  This will not be a full literary analysis, but rather a comparatively quick opinion piece on the best and worst of what I have read and watched lately. Warning: May Contain Spoilers.

Brave

This particular film fits neither into the rants or raves category, but somewhere in between.  I thoroughly enjoyed the way the film makers explored the visuals of the world they created, fully exploiting the area of digital animation to create a stunningly beautiful picture.  For a movie about a princess, the movie was able to do something unique by focusing the story, instead of on a romantic relationship, on that of the mother and daughter.  This choice shows an attempt on the part of the filmmakers to duplicate what they did in Finding Nemo, arguably Pixar’s best film, by emphasizing growth and friendship of a parent with their child as, through a series of trials, the two come to realize that they had not been listening to the other, and to develop a trust and care for the other.  In Brave as opposed to Nemo, however, the attempt to develop the mother and daughter bond between the queen and princess Merida is seems forced onto the story as the counter plot of the evil bear Mor’du and Merida’s destined confrontation of this menace, as well as with the political turmoil presented in the strife filled clans and Merida’s impending marriage.  While in Finding Nemo, the parent and child where able to come to appreciate on another through their mutual journeys to find each other, Merida and her mother go on their journey together, a fact which necessitates the presence of an outside struggle to keep the movie progressing and moving forward, while at the same time diminishing the growth of their appreciation for each other.  In short, it was as if Brave could not decide whether it wanted to be a movie about a parent and child learning to appreciate each other, or whether it wanted to be an epic adventure about a spirited young girl defying tradition to make her own destiny.  The film could have been one or the other, but by trying to do both, Brave ended up doing neither conclusively.

Vantage Point

This might be a flash back for some people, but I had never seen the movie Vantage Point before, and I was expecting a lot more than I got with this film.  I liked the format of the movie, presenting the same event from various people’s perspectives and using the transitions to build the bigger picture of the event.  Unfortunately, I found the film incomplete in its presentation of the story.  I was intrigued while watching, but as soon as the movie ended, I was disappointed; the story ends abruptly and inconclusively; the viewer is left wondering as to the importance of some characters and the motivations of others.  Why, for instance, is Sigorney Weaver’s character even included in the film?  She provides an exterior, more analytical view of the event at the beginning of the film, but there is no story arc created for her character: she just shows up at the beginning, and once again in the middle of the movie, but her character never makes a dramatic realization as to the meaning or motives behind the event.  Another part of the story development that is left incomplete is the motivations of the characters, particularly the terrorists.  What are they trying to accomplish with the series of bombings, shooting, and the kidnapping of the president?  They obviously have some sort of personal motivation in their thought process, but it is never explained, as are the relationship between the woman terrorist and the local police officer who is originally arrested in association with the shooting.  Is he a part of the plot, since he seems to know the meeting point for the group, or is he an innocent victim of her manipulations?  The entire film ended up being a bit of a disappointment for me by the end as I went into it expecting a thoughtfully crafted mystery story that concealed facts only to reveal them at the end, and instead found a story that used the artistic technique of the film to conceal a lack of plot and development.

Hyperion

One of the greatest pleasures of summertime is reading, picking up a new book and getting lost in the fantastic worlds that fill its pages.  Dan Simmons’ story Hyperion, was a fantastic read that appealed both on the fantastic, but also on an intellectual level.  As a literature student, I thoroughly enjoyed the literary references that filled the story; from the fact that the book itself seemed modeled on Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, with each member of the “pilgrimage” to Hyperion taking the time to tell their stories, and the stories relating to each other and to the journey they are all embarked upon, along with the more obvious references to John Keats which are littered through the text.  Mr. Simmons not only did his research on the literary level, however, he also demonstrates a working knowledge of history, philosophy, and religion, a knowledge that makes each of the individual characters come alive in a unique and vibrant way that appeals both to the intellectual and the emotional reader.  Mr. Simmons also does a fantastic job of drawing his diverse characters together into a story that has elements of both an imaginative science fiction story, and those of a great mystery story, simultaneously revealing and obscuring facts about the situations of the characters in such a way as to keep the reader guessing up to the very end of the book. Sometimes the language of the story was a little dense and complicated due to the mental nature of the text, however, if the reader is willing to submerge themselves in the language of the story for a little while, one can quickly adapt to the complexities of language and vocabulary that are scattered throughout.    I would highly recommend this book to anyone who love science fiction, as well as anyone who has an interest in complex, intellectual literature, and I look forward to reading the sequels to Hyperion, and other stories by Mr. Simmons.

Snow White and the Huntsman and Two Other Stories

Today, I am going to do a quick review of two books that I have read in the last week, and one movie.  I will try not to include any spoilers, however, especially in my analysis of the movie, I may have to spoil a couple of moments to make my points, so readers please be aware of that.

Pegusus, by Robin McKinley

Robin McKinley is one of my favorite authors, simply because she is not so obsessed with action as many fantasy writers are.  Although there may be battles or wars in her books, often these take second place to the development of the characters, land, lore, and story.  All of this was true of Pegasus, my latest discovery of her writings.  The story seems simple enough, it is that of a princess and her Pegasus who discover they can speak with each other, an extraordinarily rare gift.  Naturally, conflict is introduced into the story in the form of magicians who see the way in which the two communicate with each other as an evil and a threat to the magic of the kingdom.  What makes Pegasus such a compelling story, however, is not the tension of the conflict, but rather the beautiful relationship that develops between Sylvii the princess and her Pegasus Ebon as they seek to understand the vastly different cultures of the other.  McKinley uses beautiful imagery in her story, creating word pictures that reveal the natural beauty of her landscape, characters, and relationships.  This is, perhaps, what makes Pegasus such a compelling read; that it is a carefully sculpted work of art.

A Confusion of Princes by Garth Nix

If Robin McKinely is an artist in her development of character and story, then Garth Nix is a thrill seeker, developing a fast paced story that zooms through the farthest reaches of the universe while still maintaining a compelling human element.  The basic premise of the story is that Prince Khemri has just come of age as one of the almost immortal Princes who help rule the galaxy under the authority of the Emperor.  When he comes into his position, however, the Prince discovers that not everything he has been taught is the truth.  Instead of a noble and adventurous collection that spends its time exploring and protecting the galaxy, the confusion of Princes is instead an ambitious, back stabbing group that is after power more than anything.  Prince Khemri must learn to use both his head and his heart to triumph over the machinations of both the other princes and imperial force which has its own plans for him.

I was reminded of Ender’s Game while reading this story, because of the constant suspicion that the main character was being manipulated and not told the whole story, a situation which makes the reader empathize with the characters.  The entire story can be seen as Prince Khemri’s quest to find, not just his identity, but his humanity in face of a system that would attempt to reduce him to simply a piece of a complex machine.  Instead of succumbing to the temptation to be what he is “destined” to be, the Prince chooses instead, in a powerful declaration of free will, to instead be his own person.  I wonder whether Mr. Nix is planning on writing a sequel where the consequences of Khem’s decision will be explored in the context of the rest of the empire. 

Snow White and the Huntsman

This film was interesting in that it managed to combine certain aspects of an art film with those of an action adventure movie.  The directorial choices in the way certain scenes were shot, especially with the emphasis on color throughout the film created a whole that was a work of art, while the liberties taken with the story of Snow White kept the pace of the film even at moments when it might have dragged.

One of the most noticeable aspects of the film is the profound use of color.  The film has a very dim feel for the most part, except at certain moments when different colors are presented in saturated glory.  The most emphatic use of this technique is used in highlighting the characters’ eyes; Snow White’s green and the Huntsman’s blue.  It is also primarily represented when red is seen, as with the fatal apple or with the roses that inspire Snow White’s mother’s wish for her child, and of course, with the reoccurrence of blood.  Finally, in the Fairy Sanctuary, all the colors are more vibrant that anywhere else in the film, a choice that emphasizes the unique otherworldliness of the scene.  The particular emphasis of reds and greens in the story serves to emphasize two reoccurring themes in the story itself, that of sacrifice, and that of new life.  Snow White is needed to be queen of her land, because only through her can new life be imbued into the dying country.  The sacrifice is present for all the characters, as each must choose whether to give of their own life and selves to save the kingdom from the evil queen.

While the movie was artistically beautiful in its use of colors, sometimes the directors choice in perspective on some of the shots seemed unoriginal.  The first scene that was very noticeable is when Snow White is riding through the woods trying to escape the evil forces of the queen’s army.  The scene bears a striking resemblance to that of Arwen and the Black Riders in the Fellowship of the Ring; the lone rider on a white horse winding her way through the dark, bare branches of trees, the faceless forces of evil on black horses charging after her.  Several other shots were reminiscent of Lord of the Rings, particularly overhead panoramic shots of the characters walking through wilderness areas.  These shots seemed not to fit in the general ambiance of the film and to diminish the total impact of what was otherwise a spectacularly beautiful film.

The actors in the film did a very good job at portraying their respective characters.  Chris Hemsworth played a fantastic Huntsman, relatable in his humanity and haunted by his past.  Charlize Theron provides an interesting twist on the evil queen, Ravenna by playing her as a feminist who has been abused by the men in her life and so uses her beauty and power to manipulate her way into power. Although her character seems to be free as a woman, controlling the men around her and able to pursue her own whims, she is really not a liberated woman as she is still bound to a male view of women; she controls men sexually but has little authority outside of her beauty, a fact that is made more evident by the fact that when she is portrayed at her most powerful, Ravenna is also naked or partially so.  She is consumed with her appearance because that is the only way she can maintain her power.  This is contrasted starkly with Snow White, surprisingly well played by Kristen Stewart.  Snow White relies on the men around her for protection, which would seem to be a very anti-feminist position, however, she becomes the more fully realized female role.  She is able to act as the agent of her own escape from the evil queen’s clutches, win the loyalty of the characters she encounters on her journey, and eventually, to lead them in her own right against the forces of the evil queen, where she is forced to confront her nemesis in a personal duel.  She also is able to do all this without a sexual component; Snow White is always fully clothed in stark contrast with the queen, almost overly modest: never showing the skin of her arms, legs, or even her chest.  Her modestly contrasts with the queen’s overt sexuality, implying that Snow White’s authority comes from something deeper and more powerful than her sexuality, that it instead comes from her purity of character, a magnetic force which draws people to her and demands their loyalty in a way the physical magnetism of the queen never could.  This is a subtle but powerful choice in a modern world where physical beauty is highly prized and sexual power is greatly desired.

A final aspect of the film that stood out to me was the unusual mixture of the religious and fairytale.  When the story is first introduced, the viewer is given a glimpse of the court of Snow White’s father, the old king.  What is unusual about this court is the presence of Catholic religious persons; bishops and cardinals among the members.  While one might expect to see such persons in the court of a historical figure, their presence in that of a fairytale king is unusual.  So too is Snow White’s recitation of the Lord’s Prayer when the audience is first introduced to her as an adult in her prison cell.  While the catholic or Christian element disappears for the majority of the throne when Ravenna takes control of the court and Snow White disappears into the wilderness of the kingdom, it again reappears at the end, both in the presence of the bishops and cardinals at the end of the movie, and in the image of Snow White’s scepter, a blossoming staff which is startling reminiscent of the budding staff of God’s chosen high priest in Numbers 17.  The film thus presents a weird combination of Christian and Magic, a combination which can be viewed by Christians as either a good and useful representation of Christianity or an evil one that can lead uncertain Christians into the occult.  For the Christian who is much more comfortable with the idea of fantasy magic in combination with Christian beliefs, the film is a beautiful balance of both elements, as Snow White is the chosen queen both by God, as symbolized through the priests and the blooming branch, and by the elemental forces of the earth, forces which are not those of evil spirits but rather are the remnants of an earth that god created “good”.  To the Christian who has struggled with the occult in the past, however, this attempt to balance magic and faith is not a good aspect for story telling, but instead can provide a huge temptation to fall back into old ways of magic and sorcery that leads not to deeper faith or a true understanding of Christ, but rather away from Him. 

All this to say, it is the responsibility of any believer in Jesus Christ to be thinking carefully about what they watch, to make sure that they are not putting another power ahead of Christ or allowing themselves to be misled simply because they enjoy something, while at the same time realizing that their choice may not be the same as that of another believer, and so to refrain from passing judgment on a brother for something that is not specifically proscribed in the Scriptures.  Snow White and the Huntsman is a beautiful film that tries to show a world in which fairy magic is in balance and harmony with Christian belief, a film that provides two examples of independent, strong minded women, with an emphasis on the good aspects a tradition of modesty and reliance on men in some areas of life.

Busy Summer Days

Sorry I haven't gotten anything new up since my analysis of Seussical.  Summer has been crazy so far; last week I was house sitting for the first half of the week and then cleaning for my sister's graduation party the second.  This weekend we have a huge family reunion, so it mean even more cleaning and organizing to get ready.  After this weekend things will hopefully slow down a bit, and I will be able to watch a few movies and read a few books and will have a little bit more material to work with for future blogs.

Today I ran into one of the major problems with trying to write several different things at once... you end up REALLY wanting to write one thing and really NOT wanting to write the other.  I want to be working on my creative writing today, but I really should be working on writing a critical literary analysis on Shakespeare's Macbeth.  This dilemma has two possible solutions.  1. I can suck it up, get over it, and work on my analysis.  If this was the school year instead of the summer, this is the option I would choose.  2. I can procrastinate writing my analytical essay until tomorrow, and hope I am in a better frame of mind for writing it.  I am heavily leaning toward option two right now, as I have already begun the procrastinating process by writing here instead of working on the essay right now.  It really should not be that hard to write this essay, I am simply doing an analysis of a film adaptation of the play Macbeth and determining whether the adaptation is a bad, good, or excellent interpretation of the play.  I have plenty of material, the problem is, I am simply not in the mood to talk about the dramatic use of color in the film to emphasize the shift in the plot, or how the film maker's decision to place the film in a modern restaurant kitchen creates an interesting visual component as the characters are constantly working around blood and knives.  If it seems like I am brainstorming my essay here, I am, in an attempt to get to the point where I can actually go write it.

I am looking forward, within the next couple of weeks, to getting a couple more ramblings finished and posted.  I have recently begun watching the BBC TV show Merlin, and once I have finished the first season, I look forward to reviewing the series and talking about how it varies from typical Arthurian legends and why the show changed those aspects for the modern audience.  Right off the top of my head I can say that the choice to present Merlin as a teenage boy with the weight of the world on his shoulders instead of an erratic old man points to the obsession of modern culture with youth and the desire not to have to grow up.  I am also hoping to go see Snow White and the Huntsman next week sometime, and from the commercials, I think there might be some visual symbolism and interesting characters to analyze.  We shall see.

Well, an essay on Macbeth is calling my name, so that is it for today.  If there are people out there actually reading this, please feel free to comment on anything you see.  Criticism and argument are always welcome; I will never become a better writer without hearing what other people have to say about me.

Back to Reality, 

Megan Belluomini

Seussical the Musical

Introduction

Since this blog is supposed to reflect the whimsical as well as the literary side of me, I have decided to write first on Seussical the Musical.  It is the most recent show I have attended, and is also my new favorite musical.  As I have only had the opportunity to see the show itself once, and have been forced to rely on YouTube videos for a refresher, I apologize in advance for any mistakes I might make on the various plot points, as well as any inadequacies in my analysis of the various characters.  That being said, let us jump into Seussical!

The Show

I was very fortunate to see the play for the first time, performed by a group of friends from my old highschool drama class.  It was incredible to see how each of the members had grown as performers in the three years since I last performed with them.  My advantage in watching this play performed by a group of people that I already knew and respected was evidenced in the fact that I already had an emotional bond with the actors, an emotional bond that could easily be played upon in the performance.  This is the primary advantage of highschool and community theater; the audience already knows the performers and has a rapport with them, a relationship which enables the actors to be much more themselves in the characters than forcing them to play a character outside themselves.  Thus, I was impressed also by the particulars of the casting, as each actor brought their own personality to the character in a way that was both moving and passionate.  In preparing to write on the play, I took the opportunity to watch videos of other performances of the play, and have noticed that because I do not have the previous relationship with the performers, that I am much less moved by the performances, and it requires a much higher level of acting and talent to elicit an equal emotional response.  That being said, while these renditions of the play do not necessarily connect as well on the emotional level, I am much more likely to be impressed by the level of skill in the acting, dancing, and singing of the performers, and able to appreciate the play on a more intellectual level.  This dichotomy between the emotional and the intellectual appreciation of a performance is one of the most difficult aspects of live theater as it is very difficult to find the emotional intimacy of a local production combined with the technical quality of a larger one.

Story and Themes

The story of Seussical combines several of Dr. Seuss' well loved stories into one larger narrative.  The story mainly follows Horton the Elephant in his endeavors to protect the tiny dust speck on which live the "Whos," and to protect and care for an egg that was abandoned by its irresponsible mother.  Jojo, the Who is the other main character, a boy whose outlandish "thinks" tend to get him in trouble.   Each of these characters undergoes their own individual journey of self discovery, aided by a rich supporting cast of Seussian characters.

While different versions of the play can have a very different emphasis in regard to the characters, there are several major themes and a few minor ones that stand out.  The opening song, "Oh the Thinks You Can Think," is a number which both introduces the audience to the characters of the play and to the primary theme, which is to allow yourself to imagine, to think outside the box.  This theme plays out in the parallel narratives of Jojo and Horton the Elephant, as both seem prone to outrageous "thinks," which both get them in trouble and later help them triumph over the doubts of the characters around them.  This theme is also embodied in the character of the Cat in the Hat, and will be further discussed in the character analysis section.

A second major theme which is very evident in the dual protagonists is that of size.  The emphasis on making the story "from the smallest of small... to the largest of all" constantly in evidence; references to size litter the play, from hyperbolic references to the height of mountains to the "small but grand" marching band in Whoville.  This constant reference to size serves a dual purpose, it causes the audience to reflect on the insignificance of themselves in the light of the rest of the universe, while at the same time drawing attention to the diminutive details of the world around the audience and hinting that there might be something very important hidden there.  First, the emphasis on size reminds the audience member of their relative insignificance within the cosmos.  Watching the poor little Who's struggle to survive on their speck of dust, unable to even comprehend how huge the rest of the world is around them is eye-opening.  The refrain of the difficulties of the Whos, "drifting through space and cannot steer," will cause the alert listener a moment of pause as they consider the fact that we are really no different from the Whos, completely dependent on the movements of natural bodies and principles and laws of motion of which we have only the vaguest comprehension.  Suddenly, the audience member is nothing more than a tiny speck in the universe, alone and powerless beside a vastness which he can never hope to understand.  This dramatic emphasis on the miniscule nature of the individual within the scope of the universe then becomes a building block for the second result of this theme of size; the importance of the small.  The idea that the smallest voice can make the biggest difference is a theme which carries over from the original Dr. Seuss book, Horton Hears A Who, into the play.  Jojo is the youngest and smallest character in the play, however, it is his small voice and small word that saves the entire planet of Who.  Horton the Elephant also comes into his own as a character only when his focus shifts to the tiny speck of dust on which live the invisible Whos.  It is only by focusing on the little details of life, the pleasure of imagining or the responsibility of caring for another person that the characters in Seussical can find happiness and peace.

Characters

The previous discussion of Gertrude McFuzz seems a good jumping off point for a closer examination of the characters of the play, the archetypes they represent, and their role in the outline of the play itself.

Horton the Elephant

Horton is nothing less than a hero.  Completely confident in his position from the beginning of the play and unfailingly kind and honest, Horton is an ideal.  While he seems to suffer some doubts or fears in the face of his opponents (the Sour Kangaroo or the Wickersham Brothers), he is able to push passed these to defend the small and innocent Whos on the clover.  He is extraordinarily likable and relatable, and can easily draw the audience into the story as they sympathize with his plight and see him as an idealized representation of themselves (Everyone has that internal image of themselves where they do everything right and never make a mistake).  Horton's weakness is also his greatest strength; since he genuinely cares about the troubles of others, he can be easily manipulated by those with less honorable motives as is the case with the bird Mayzie.  

Gertrude McFuzz

The story of Gertrude McFuzz and her desire to be beautiful lends itself to an interpretation of openness to people of various sizes, body types, colors, and appearances, which in turn emphasizes the current fascination in entertainment with "being yourself."  Viewers of Seussical are encouraged by these themes to embrace themselves as whoever they are.  Change and growth are not the fundamental building blocks of this play; this is not a bildungs-roman or coming of age story, instead, it is a story about learning to be yourself.  While in the modern mind, these two concepts seem to have become intertwined with each other, they are in fact, distinctive, and each encourages a radically different approach to life and to growth.  A more traditional coming of age story focuses on the development of the characters.  As they encounter a series of tests and trials, the characters are forced to change and grow, each new trial creating a new aspect of the character's character.  At the end of the story, while the character is recognizable, they have grown to be a different person from the one who started out on the journey.  This is not the case in many modern movies and plays, and is not the case with Seussical.  The characters in Seussical do not change as they encounter troubles; Horton is the same elephant at the end of the story as he is at the beginning, Jojo is the same thinker.  Rather, they have come to accept themselves as who they are, and to force the world around them to accept them too.  While Gertrude McFuzz seems to go through a character development, the only change that actually happens is in her ability to accept herself as who she is.  She is able to overcome the vanity that is the fault in her character, but only by setting herself up as her own ideal.  She is perfect just the way she is, the story would have us believe.  While this mindset seems to encourage a good attitude in the viewer (self esteem and accepting yourself as who you are are very important), it does nothing to encourage the audience to grow beyond themselves.  There is no one out there in the world who is perfect just the way they are.  Everyone has flaws and troubles that they have to overcome to become a better, more fulfilled person.  The goal of existence cannot simply be to be yourself; if that were the case, Mayzie would be the hero of Seussical since she is completely comfortable with who she is and her place in the world.  Instead, one must focus on being the BEST yourself that you can possibly be.  Every day should be a process of smoothing over the rough edges and working through the flaws so that an individual is constantly becoming a better, more content person.

Jojo

Jojo is a very unique because of his position both as a character within the story, but also as an outside audience member.  The story begins when Jojo, an ordinary child, pulls the Cat in the Hat out onto the stage.  Through the early part of the story, Jojo and the Cat are bystanders, watching Horton in his discovery of the dust-speck that holds the planet of Who and his confrontation with the other animals of the jungle of Nool.  Even when Jojo is himself incorporated into the story, as the young son of the mayor of who, he still enjoys a wider view of the events of the play than any other single character, except maybe the Cat in the Hat himself.  The entire question of the power of Jojo’s position in Seussical can be summed up in a single line from the song Alone in the Universe, which is a duet between Jojo and Horton.  At one point in the song, the two characters from different worlds begin to speak to each other, and Jojo asks Horton, “Are you real, or are you a very large think?”  While Horton readily assures Jojo that he is real, the audience is still left questioning; is Horton real, and in what sense?  Do the events of Seussical “really” take place, or are they simply a product of Jojo’s imaginging from the beginning of the play?  The question posed at the end of the play, “What do you think?” implies that, while all these characters may be real in Jojo’s mind, they do not have existence outside of his “Thinks.”  To some extent then, Jojo can be viewed as a representation of Dr. Seuss himself, instead of a character from one of his books.  Jojo is the thinker from whom the whole story of Seussical can spring.  Jojo, by bridging the world between the audience and the play, as the mastermind, also serves as a portal through which the audience can enter the story.  If Jojo, who is really not so different from the average audience member, can cross over and enter into the story in his mind, then we can too, a subtle shift that helps the audience to suspend their disbelief and actually develop an emotional connection to the characters, as they are not just in Jojo’s head, but in that of the audience.

The Sour Kangaroo

It might just be me, but I find the redemption of the Sour Kangaroo at the end of Seussical a bit forced.  She spends 95% of the play mocking Horton for his staunch belief in the Whos on the clover.  She follows him halfway around the world to arrest him, bring him back to the Jungle of Nool for a trial, and is the star witness against him in that trial.  Then suddenly, one YOPP later, the Sour Kangaroo does an about face and is looking to protect the clover with Horton.  Now I realize that is how the book went, but COME ON! There is no way that after all that effort not merely in criticizing Horton, but actively trying to destroy the dust speck and clover, that she would accept the fact that she was completely wrong and blissfully go off to protect the clover for the rest of her life.  It almost undercuts the ending of the story, because the audience is left waiting to see if this is some kind of trick from the Sour Kangaroo to get the clover so she can destroy it.  The girl sitting next to me in the theater at the performance actually winced when Horton handed the clover over to the Sour Kangaroo and whispered to herself, "Don't let her take it, don't let her take it!"  It seems to diminish the impact of the "perfect" ending of the story when the audience is doubtful of the redemption of such a prominent character.

The Wickersham Brothers

The Wickersham brothers serve as a representation of the majority of the world; they don’t really think for themselves, they will follow anyone who is strong enough to command their loyalty, and they tend to look down on others.  Their disdain of Horton shows a disregard of anyone who does not conform to the societal norm or to the influence of peer pressure.  They are not necessarily antagonists in the story, but are instead followers of the cult of the “normal,” misguided and acting according to a warped perspective.  Unfortunately, most people are like the Wickershams, blindly following whatever a strong personality tells them is the right way of doing things and pressuring those outside the circle of normality to conform.

Mayzie

As villains go, Mayzie is remarkably tame, which makes her unusually easy for the audience to hate.  She is not wicked or evil, power-hungry or ambitious.  Mayzie is simply selfish.  No one else in the world is an important as her, at least in her own mind.  She doesn’t stop to think how her actions might affect others, she just does whatever she wants to.  Her choice to leave Horton to sit on the egg for her while she flew of to Palm Beach was not made out of any spiteful or malicious intent but rather a rejection of the thing in her life that was inconvenient to her.  If Horton had not come to sit on the egg, Mayzie would probably have left the egg alone to freeze when she got to bored and tired to handle the responsibility.  It was simply fortune that allowed Horton to come along before that breaking point.  This is what makes Mayzie such a compelling antagonist for the story; everyone knows someone like that! Every person knows that one person who thinks about themselves more than anything, who manipulates other to get what he or she wants, simply because they can.  An audience can identify with Horton as he has to deal with Mayzie because the audience knows who Mayzie is and have been in Horton’s position before.  Even when Mayzie thinks she is being helpful to others, her actions highlight her selfish thoughtlessness; the way in which she tells Gertrude how to obtain the pills to make her tail grow is focused not on who Gertrude is and her problem, but rather on how much cooler Mayzie is than Gertrude, where she can feel good about herself at the expense of Gertrude.  A similar situation is seen when Mayzie gives her egg to Horton at the circus.  She might justify her actions as being beneficial to Horton, however, this is simply an excuse for her to carry on with her current lifestyle without any guilt or regret.  In short, Mayzie LaBird is an infuriating antagonist because she is not an evil villain, but is simply a self absorbed person who wrecks havoc accidentally.

The Mayor of Who and his Wife

The Mayor and his wife are caught between three conflicting expectations in their lives.  First, as the mayor states in his opening speech to Jojo, “I have just been elected, and upright behaviour is thus for expected.”  The mayor and his wife are under the public scrutiny of the entire town, and thus are expected to behave in a certain manner.  This public expectation is further compounded by their expectations of themselves, to be good parents to Jojo.  When their son is seen as misbehaving, this reflects poorly upon them as parents, causing them to cry out in frustration, “who has the instructions on how to raise a child?”  They are futher torn by their love for their son and their desire to let him grow into the person he is meant to be, without the stifling of expectations.  The pull of these three factors leads them to try to ask their son to be “normal,” and later to symbolically relinquish their parental responsibilities by placing Jojo under the authority of General Ghengis Khan Schmitz.  It is only when they are restored to the role of parent after jojo’s apparent “death” in the battlefield, can they fulfill their roles properly, both as parents and as an authority in Whoville.  When they are able to reassume these roles, those under their authority, such as the citizens of Who, and Jojo in particular, are able to assume their own roles and identities in order the save their word.

General Ghengis Khan Schmitz

The military subplot involving General Schmitz is sometimes removed from the story, and it is not difficult to understand why.  In the post 9/11 world, expressing an antimilitary sentiment with a character like General Schmitz and the absurdity of the bread and butter war is going to be unpopular to say the least. General Schmitz is more than just a military figure, however.  As the head of a military Academy, he is portrayed not only as a soldier, but also as an educator, an educator who seeks to stifle the independence and intellect of his students by forcing them to conform to a socially accepted norm.  Fortunately for the General, his character is one of the few in the play who actually seems to evidence growth; when he is forced to tell Jojo’s parents that their son is presumed dead in battle, he is also forced to confront his personal role in the boy’s death and to re-evaluate his position.  Since his military academy is never mentioned, the audience can assume either that the General himself had a change of heart, or that Jojo’s parents decided not to send him back.  Either way, there is evidence of a little growth and recognition of the foolishness of the war.

The Egg/ Elephant Bird

A few quick words on the egg that hatches into an elephant bird; this character represents a common literary question about human development, namely that of nature versus nurture.  When the egg hatches, it becomes a visual symbol of this dichotomy.  The bird aspect of the creature represents the nature part of its existence, the genetic predisposition it inherits from its father and mother.  The elephant aspect of the creature, however, represents the nurture aspect of human development, which can shape and alter the original nature.  The egg, recognizing that Horton was much more its parent than Mayzie, changed its physical appearance to reflect that of its adoptive parent.  The elephant bird symbolizes perfectly the profound impact a parent can have on a child, influencing how he or she will grow up and the kind of person he or she will be.  Second, the elephant bird also highlights the necessity of a two parent family.  Horton recognizes this need when he first sees the elephant bird, commenting to Gertrude McFuzz, “Oh Gertrude, what am I going to do, I am slow and I am fat.  All I know is the earth, he will need much more than that!”  One parent cannot effectively teach a child everything they need to know about the world, cannot give them a complete education because no one person is perfect.  Everyone has their own talents and weaknesses, and the joy of a two parent family is that the parents complement each other in such a way as to make up for the other’s weaknesses, or as Gertrude McFuzz said, “I have wings, I can fly, you teach him earth, and I will teach him sky.”

The Cat in the Hat

I must be frank and admit right off that I am in love with the character of the Cat in the Hat.  He is such an enjoyable, humorous character, with such a unique perspective on the events of the play.  Like Jojo, the Cat serves as both a member of the audience and a player in the story, however, while Jojo can be seen as the author, the Cat is the Narrator.  He knows what is going to happen before it actually does, is familiar with the in and outs of the story, and always seems to be in control of the story itself.  Because of his overarching position as narrator, the Cat seems to transcend the story itself, to become something greater than either the story or its creator can be individually.  If Jojo is the mind behind the story, then the Cat in the Hat represents a physical manifestation of the realm of imagination, or the story itself.  While the author is nominally in charge, sometimes the story runs away, overwhelming the author and carrying him off places he didn’t intend to go and getting him in trouble.  Thus, the Cat is seen everywhere in Seussical, popping up wherever a character is needed to make the story progress or to explain some untold aspect of it.  When the story itself seems so out of control it has descended into madness and darkness, like in the song Havin a Hunch, the Cat shows up to remind both the audience and Jojo that the story is a story, and that stories have happy endings, so that even when things seem dark as they can be, al you have to do is “think a glimmer of light!”  The Cat is neither good nor evil, neither real nor a “think,” instead, he is somehow all of these, an extension of Jojo’s position as storyteller and the story itself, a guide through the twists and turns of Seussical.  The Cat in the Hat is more than a member of the audience, and more than a character in the story, he is the mind of everyone in the audience, come together, and he is the story.

Conclusion

Seussical is a complex play, filled with powerful themes and compelling characters who can also be read as powerful symbols.  The two major themes are, first, that of imagination and being willing to use your mind and imagination to overcome the troubles and obstacles that face each person, while the second that of size, as it relates to the characters and the audience itself.  Each of the individual characters relates in a different way to these individual themes, and can often have their own unique symbolic purposes within the scope of the play.  Whether you have enjoyed my analysis or not, I definitely recommend watching Seussical as it is both a compelling and heart wrenching story.

Introducing Me

I probably should have started writing like this awhile ago, as one of the consistent factors of my life over the last year or so has been walking out of a movie or play, or putting down a book, and saying, "There was so MUCH going on in that, I want to write an essay about it!"  My family has gotten a little tired of my outbursts, so my mom has been urging me to start a blog and tell the world about my thoughts, instead of overwhelming my sisters and parents with the unfiltered barrage of analysis that I keep rambling on about when I am washing dishes, or driving someplace, or watching a movie with them.  So, Ramblings of Literary Whimsy has been created for all the crazy jumbled bounce of ideas that are continuously dancing in circles in my head.  I hope that there is someone out there that finds these Ramblings useful, or at least, interesting.  I will mostly be writing about whatever movies, plays, or books I happen to see and enjoy at the moment, with perhaps some music or poetry thrown in for good measure.  As I am a Christian, a lot of what I say will be tinged with my beliefs, and an emphasis on story in the grand scheme of the meta-narrative (the overarching story of God's goodness and grace that encompasses all history and literature).

Enough about what to expect from the blog itself, a little about me.  I am a senior in college, looking forward to finishing my Bachelor's degree and hopefully going on to get my Masters and Doctorate in English Literature.  I really enjoy musical theater (My favorite play currently is Seussical the Musical), and I am hoping to continue my studies by looking at Theater as literature.  I also am very interested in karate, and am working of reaching my black-belt within the next four years.  I have loved reading ever since I was really little, and I have begun to enjoy writing over the last five or six years.  My go to genre of literature is fantasy as it if often full of foreshadowing and symbolism, provides fantastic illustrations of the ongoing battle between good and evil, and is generally cool.  I have a very eclectic taste in music, anything from musical theater to classical to country to rock, and I have been known to randomly burst out in song and dance should the moment call for it.

Well, I guess that is enough of an introduction for now.  I look forward to watching Ramblings of Literary Whimsy develop, and to sharing my thoughts with anyone interested enough to find them.  I will try to post fairly consistently, however, much of what I write will be dependent upon what I am able to devote my time to reading and seeing.

Well, back to reality,
Megan Belluomini