Just in time for Endgame: a review of Troy Kinney's 'Watching Movies, Watching Stories'

Title: Watching Movies, Watching Stories: An Interactive Guide for Engaging Culture Through Film

Author: Troy Kinney

Genre: Nonfiction, movies

Pages: 75

Buy Watching Movies, Watching Stories

What Goodreads has to say:

If you love movies, then this is the book for you! It is a hands-on guide for those wishing to expand their enjoyment of movies. The book is embedded with over 90 film clips that can be viewed immediately on your smartphone or other internet connected screen. 

You will begin to watch movies with new eyes.

This book is useful for the individual or for small groups. It has indispensable helps on how to take what you learn and truly converse with those around you from a biblical understanding. 

Movie-makers are telling us about how they see the world. Learn to see and understand their messages. Take those messages and use that information to bridge the gap with others in order to share the gospel.

What I have to say:

I love movies and I love analyzing movies. When a writer or director puts a lot of thought into a film and creates something layered and beautiful, I love picking apart those layers and finding meaning within. I've even reviewed some movies on this blog, as faithful readers may remember! So needless to say, I found this book about how to watch and analyze movies very informative and interesting.

Some of it I knew already (having taken a couple film classes in high school and college), but I could definitely use a refresher. Other stuff I just hadn't thought about or didn't know. For example, the section about dinner scenes in movies was very interesting. I've never thought about the dinner (or any meal, I guess) scene as a recurring motif and the implications of it in different contexts. 

This book is full of insights along those lines--one eye-opener for me was the section on water, rain, and snow in movies. Sometimes these elements can have underlying meanings or, at the least, suggestions. The author used the example of the scene from the first Harry Potter movie when the First-Years ride across the Great Lake toward Hogwarts. Is it significant that they only do this in the first movie, their first year attending Hogwarts? Does the water signify some kind of baptism-like initiation? Whoa....

The first half of the book mainly points out the different tools filmmakers use to tell stories and convey meaning. This includes camera shots, angles, and movements. There's also discussion of the roles music, lighting, and editing play in movies, and how those elements can be used to create meaning.

If you're a visual learner like me (or if you just like watching movies, also like me), good news: there are lots of video clips throughout the book that the author uses to illustrate what he's talking about. And wow, does he pick good movie clips. For most of the clips, I'd either seen the movie and already love it, or was so intrigued by the clip that I now want to see it. Got a long watch list after reading this book.

The end of the book delves into Christian themes in movies: the good, the bad, and the ugly (incidentally, that movie shows up in a couple clips). This includes movies like Ben Hur and Narnia (both excellent films) that overtly convey a Christian message. It also includes movies like Harry Potter and The Matrix, that use the Christian "myth" or the hero's journey to tell a powerful story, without being a story specifically about Christianity (though I'm sure we could argue that point).

Then there are films like Evan Almighty. Yeah, IDK. But as I'm sure author Troy Kinney would point out, you could use Evan Almighty as a springboard for a very deep discussion!

This book is written with the goal of helping people use movies as a starting point for discussions about Christianity. It goes without saying that it's geared toward a Christian audience, and if you can't tell from the name of this blog and my frequent C. S. Lewis references, that includes me. If you're not a Christian, there's still plenty of good information about how to watch and analyze films, but you might prefer a different book. Then again, this one is very well written, engaging, and easy to follow.

I finished it just in time to go analyze the heck out of Endgame--which I'm watching tomorrow. I'll see you again on the other side.

Rating:

Until tomorrow.

Quickly: 6 things about Beauty and the Beast

If you haven't seen it yet, go. I'm not saying Disney's new Beauty and the Beast film is perfect, or that you won't be disappointed at all, but overall it's a great film, and full of magic. I thought I'd mix things up a little with something that's not a straightforward review. Here's a {spoiler-free} list of 6 things you'll learn from the new Beauty and the Beast film:

1. Emma Watson and Dan Stevens are great actors and highly attractive people - they just can't sing.

Sound of Music much?

Yeah. We all saw it coming, and basically it was what we expected. Emma Watson makes a fantastic Belle, and who doesn't love Dan Stevens as the Beast? There's just one problem: it's a musical. 

Some of the supporting actors have pretty good voices: Luke Evans isn't bad as Gaston, and Kevin Kline's brief solo is surprisingly good. Emma Thompson can sing well enough to play Mrs. Potts, and Audra McDonald is great as Garderobe (because McDonald actually sings). 

But, sadly, Emma and Dan don't quite pull it off. A great orchestra helps them out in the big moments of the score, but it can't take them all the way. Do I wish Disney had cast better singers in the roles? I'm not sure. It's a trade-off, I guess. 

2. LeFou is more complicated than we thought, but not quite as funny.

Don't get me wrong - he's still funny. And I couldn't have picked a better actor than Josh Gad to play Gaston's buffoonish sidekick. But Gad takes the character in a different direction. He's not just an imbecile, and he has character development. Also, yes, he's gay. But I think the press has made that into a bigger deal than it actually is in the film.

3. Gaston is sort of likeable.

I mean until he ties Maurice up to a tree and leaves him to the wolves. I almost liked the guy. And I loved the "Gaston" scene in the tavern. It was one of the highlights of the film. Dancing on the table a la Newsies = yes.

4. We should all return to 18th century French fashions.

Also yes are every single one of Belle's dresses, Gaston's overcoat, and pretty much anything that anyone wears in the entire movie. The visuals are gorgeous, from the set and landscape shots to the costumes, camera angles, and lighting. As a piece of visual artistry, it's perfect. 

The ballroom scene - !!!

5. This isn't the Beauty and the Beast you think you know.

JK, it totally is. I mean they changed a few lines here and there, added a couple brief songs, and mixed some scenes up a little, but for the most part it's pretty much the original cartoon replayed with live actors. I was kind of hoping they'd throw in the song "If I Can't Love Her" from the Broadway version of Beauty and the Beast, but they didn't. They did give the Beast a new song, but in my opinion it was a little on the lame side. 

Overall, though, I loved what they did with the story. Of course I loved the courage and little personality touches that Emma Watson brought to Belle, making her an inventor like her father and emphasizing her love of Shakespeare and such (Shakespeare!). And the orchestral score was breathtaking. (Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum! [bum] Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum! [bum] Bum bum bum bum, bum bum bum bum, bum bum bum bum bum....bbuummm...... OK I'm done.)

6. To love another person is to see the face of God.

So enough from me. Go see the movie.

Until tomorrow.

The Little Prince

Title: The Little Prince
Production Company: Netflix
Director: Mark Osborne
Screenplay: Irena Brignull, Bob Persichetti
Based on the French novel by Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Mackenzie Foy, Rachel McAdams, Riley Osborne (and a lot of other people)
Release Date: 5 August 2016
Length: 1 h 48 min
Rating: PG
Genre: Animation, Adventure, Drama, (Sci-fi?)

Synopsis:

A little girl lives in a very grown-up world with her mother, who tries to prepare her for it. Her neighbor, the Aviator, introduces the girl to an extraordinary world where anything is possible, the world of the Little Prince.

What I have to say:

At long last! You can now stream The Little Prince on Netflix! And the film lives up to its expectations: all in all, this is a funny, sweet, heart-warming film with beautiful animation that is sure to move viewers to tears. Lots of them. 

There are two stories in this film: a story about a little girl making friends with an old aviator, and a story about The Little Prince and his adventures. The Little Prince's story is framed beautifully by the real-world story of the little girl and the aviator. Each story has a different animation style, which is a wonderful touch and helps to distinguish between the two. I LOVE the animation style in which The Little Prince's story plays out. It suits the story and fits in perfectly with the original illustrations by Saint-Exupery. 

Both stories are well told and nicely executed. I could wish that the filmmakers spent a little more time on The Little Prince's story, as it seemed just a bit too brief and moved rather quickly. But even this didn't detract from the story's beauty and depth.

The only thing that I felt really detracted from the story was the episode after the conclusion of The Little Prince's story, when the little girl flies the aviator's plane to another planet. Here she finds all of the characters that The Little Prince meets on his journey through the stars before coming to Earth (the rich man, the king, the clown). 

As a fantasia on themes found in The Little Prince story, it's not bad and actually rather creative, but as a story that is of a piece with the story of The Little Prince himself, it's totally wrong and the effect is jarring. This episode feels disjointed when taken as a whole with the rest of the movie. For one thing, it's unnecessary. It springs out of the little girl's need to come to terms with things like letting go and growing up, which is a viable dilemma, but there are better ways to accomplish this that would have been more in keeping with the rest of the story. 

One thing I did really like about how this episode played out, however, was that, since the little girl falls off the side of the house and blacks out before waking up and finding the aviator's plane, and since the scene fades out after she leaves Asteroid B-612, you could assume that the whole incident was a dream, which makes me feel slightly better about the whole thing.

So if you watch The Little Prince, I recommend just skipping that whole episode in the middle, starting when the little girl flies the aviator's plane out of Earth's atmosphere. Just pick it up again when she gets up in the morning and decides to go visit the aviator with her mother. That's a sweet scene. 

Outside of that one part in the middle, the movie is absolutely beautiful: the visuals are stunning, the writing brilliant, and the story as poignant as ever.

By a Strange coincidence

Title: Doctor Strange

Production Company: Marvel Studios
Director: Scott Derricksen

Screenplay: Jon Spaihts, Scott Derickson, C. Robert Cargill
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen
Release Date: 4 November 2016
Length: 1 h 55 min
Rating: PG-13 for sci-fi violence and action throughout, and an intense crash sequence
Genre: Fantasy/Science-Fiction

Based on the Marvel Comics by Steve Ditko

What I have to say:

For anyone planning on watching the new Doctor Strange movie, I have some advice: embrace the movie's strangeness. If you don't do this, you won't enjoy it.

The title alone should clue you in to the fact that there's going to be some weird stuff in this movie, and there is. I don't mean anything super bizarre or unseemly, but if you have a hard time with movies that push the boundaries of film or that suddenly dissolve into kaleidoscopic and deep space screenshots (think 2001: A Space Odyssey), this might not be your kind of movie.

On the other hand, if you're a big fan of weird artsy films and have an offbeat sense of humor, you're probably going to like this one.

One guess which camp I'm in.

When the film first cut to the aforementioned psychedelic abstract shots, I found myself thinking briefly, "This is really weird," and then almost instantly, "Just roll with it. It's awesome." After that I thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

It was almost as weird watching Benedict Cumberbatch play Stephen Strange. Not because the role wasn't created just for him (it was), but because Stephen is American. I didn't even feel like I was watching Benedict Cumberbatch, because he had no English accent and his voice sounded totally different. I call that pretty good acting.

As The Ancient One, Strange's teacher, Tilda Swinton was a perfect blend of poise and strength. And she's totally rocking the bald look.

The film's aesthetics, writing, and execution are all top par. But what really struck me were the film's higher themes:

"Silence your ego and your power will rise." - The Ancient One, Doctor Strange  

"Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it." - C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I LOVED this line from the film. Not only is it absolutely true, but it makes me think of what C. S. Lewis has said about surrendering yourself and letting go of your pride and vanity - that when you do this, the paradoxical thing is that you become more yourself and more powerful than ever.

The passage in Lewis quoted above continues:

"Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fibre of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay." 

Sounds a little like the personal journey Doctor Strange takes over the course of the movie. When he looks for the power to heal himself physically, he finds only despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But when he begins to pursue learning and study for something higher than himself, and when he seeks to use his powers to save others and protect the world from harm, he finds true power.

And this wasn't the only moment in the film that felt reminiscent of Lewis. The idea that there are "worlds without end" (the exact phrase used in the film) in the universe and that there is a dark power seeking to gain dominion over every planet is the exact premise of Lewis' space trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength). Dormammu in Doctor Strange, the malevolent force trying to gain control of the Earth, parallels the Bent One in Lewis' trilogy, the enemy of God who has Earth under his control and seeks dominion of all worlds. 

Of course, Lewis didn't just pull this idea out of thin air, either. The Bent One is, explicitly, the Devil, and Lewis derives the frame of his story from the Biblical account of the War in Heaven and the enmity between God and Satan.

So let's return to Doctor Strange with this story in mind. It's not that I'm trying to make a scriptural parallel where one doesn't exist; I think this was fairly explicit in the movie. While Dormammu seems to be the best candidate for the Devil in this movie, Kaecilius also resembles that character.

The Ancient One tells Strange that Kaecilius used to be a student of hers, but when he diverged from the true path and sought forbidden knowledge, he cut himself off from The Ancient One and her school, and led away a significant group of students (we'll call it one third) after him. Now Kaecilius and his followers, cast out of Cammitage, are now endeavoring to help Dormammu gain dominion over the Earth.

Kaecilius believes that Dormammu can give him and his followers immortality and power, but the Ancient One warns him that the path he has chosen "will bring you only sorrow." And Strange echoes her warning to Kaecilius at a later point, telling him that Dormammu has deceived him, and that if his design succeeds it will not bring him happiness, but rather suffering. 

Towards the end of the film we learn that Dormammu's promise of immortality is true, but in a twisted sense. He means that Kaecilius and his followers will live forever as part of himself - that they will be absorbed into his being and in effect lose themselves forever. What does this remind you of?

Consider senior devil Screwtape's last letter to his nephew Wormwood:

"Rest assured, my love for you and your love for me are as like as two peas. I have always desired you, as you (pitiful fool) desired me. The difference is that I am the stronger. I think they will give you to me now; or a bit of you. Love you? Why, yes. As dainty a morsel as ever I grew fat on." - C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

How opposite this is from the fate of those who follow the Ancient One, or Maleldil in Lewis' space trilogy, or God if we go back to the source: in surrendering themselves to a higher power, they become truly themselves, while the followers of Dormammu, or The Bent One, or the Devil, are truly and irrevocably lost forever.

"The bill comes due." - Mordo, Doctor Strange

 Kaecilius and his followers have transgressed (in fact, it now occurs to me that you could read Kaecilius' act of pursuing forbidden knowledge as a parallel of Adam's Transgression in the Garden of Eden as well) - and the bill always comes due, as Mordo - one of the Ancient One's most loyal students, reminds Strange. A reckoning has to be made. And all of this informs Strange's most repeated line in the film:

"Dormammu, I've come to bargain." - Stephen Strange, Doctor Strange

By trapping Dormammu in a looped segment of time, Strange allows Dormammu to continue killing him over and over again, presumably for eternity - as Strange will always be "reborn" the next instant. It's a Promethean bargain. At first, it seems like Strange is the only one who stands to lose in this scenario:

Dormammu: You cannot do this for ever.  

Dr. Stephen Strange: Actually, I can. This is how things are now! You and me. Trapped in this moment. Endlessly.  

Dormammu: Then you will spend eternity dying! 

Dr. Stephen Strange: Yes, but everyone on Earth will live.  

Dormammu: End this! You will never win.   

Dr. Stephen Strange: No. But I can lose. Again. And again. And again. Forever. That makes you my prisoner.

What does it remind you of, people? If you said something along the lines of, "the bargain Aslan made with the White Witch," or, "the bargain Christ made with the Devil," you've hit on my thought exactly.

In the interest of not taking up any more of your time, I'll stop here, though there's much more I could say. This movie abounds in awesome quotes like "We never lose our demons, we only learn to live above them," "No one ever is [ready]. We don't get to choose our time," and "Not everything does [make sense]. Not everything has to." Man, the Ancient One says good stuff.

I'll end with one final quote: when Strange complains, "I can't do this," Mordo rejoins, "There is no other way":

"I daren't come and drink," said Jill 

"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.

"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then." 

"There is no other stream," said the Lion.” - C. S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

A final word of advice: This is a Marvel movie. Stay after the credits. And then when you think you've seen the clip at the end of the credits, stay longer, because there's another one.


Until tomorrow. 

The Little Prince gets release date and new trailer

Dear blog readers,

I thought you might be interested to know that The Little Prince movie now has a release date of August 5th.

Also, there's a new trailer.

That's all.

Sincerely,

Erin

Must be a Thursday....

Hello friends, Romans, countrymen, Narnians, rebels, and free peoples of Middle-Earth! (If that didn't cover you, consider yourself included by default.)

Apparently my resolution to post every first Thursday took a month off. So here, a little late but still on a Thursday, is a post of relatively-random miscellany.

First, some Little Prince news: Netflix has taken over the rights to the film and will be releasing it... at some unknown future date. This means - barring a small miracle - we won't get to see it on the big screen. (sigh). If you have any further news on the movie, pleASE TELL ME!!!!!!

Second, I'm seeing Disney's Broadway musical Newsies in Portland tonight and will try to get a review of the play posted by my first Thursday deadline in May. However, I make no promises. You can go on strike if you want, but it won't make anything happen faster.

Third, I recently became aware of a program known as VidAngel which allows you to watch clean versions of PG-13 and R-rated films. The website (www.vidangel.com) lets you set your own filters, after registering, so you can choose how much you want to edit out of language, sex, nudity, violence, disturbing images, and Jar Jar Binks (yes, it really does let you edit out Jar Jar Binks; also the new scenes in the original Star Wars trilogy).

Though it might take a couple uses for you to figure out where you should set your preferences to ensure you don't see the bad stuff while also not missing out on key plot points like main characters dying (apparently my graphic violence filters were too high when I watched The Matrix), it's great for film enthusiasts (like me) who don't watch R-rated or even sometimes especially sketchy PG-13 rated films. I finally got to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel and for those of you who like Indie films with an original story, clever script, and high degree of artisanship - plus great actors - the film is a must-see. Also, it's hilarious.

Finally, enjoy some photos from my sister and I's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Party. She'd just finished reading the first three books in the "trilogy" for the first time, and wanted to see the 2005 movie starring Martin Freeman, despite my warning that the film is a vast disappointment (though brilliantly cast).

Our menu included Babel gold-fish, non-alcoholic Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters (if you want the recipe I'll try to remember how I made them), and ... some other snacks that had nothing to do with Hitchhiker's Guide - you'd be surprised how difficult it is to come up with HHGTTG themed snacks (yes, I got tired of writing the whole title out; from this point on you will see a number of different abbreviations, none of which really work). We also carried towels.

On a second viewing, the movie wasn't as bad as I remembered it being, but then again, my expectations were below ground-level. My sister and I agreed that the first third of the movie was great and we were laughing our double-heads off, but around the middle, the film took a dive, to be partly redeemed in the last third of the movie. Whatever else I can criticize about the H2G2 film (and there's a lot), I can say nothing at all against the casting. Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, Zooey Deschanel as Trillian, and, of course, Alan Rickman as Marvin the manically depressed robot are all brilliant moves. Not to mention the actors who play Ford and Zaphod, also perfectly matched up, and Stephen Fry as the voice of the Guide. Seems like a recipe for success. Ah well.

Until tomorrow.

Victor Frankenstein: MEET YOUR MAKERS

This poster. There are better ones but I picked this one because it cracks me up.

Title: Victor Frankenstein

Director: Paul McGuigan
Screenplay: Max Landis

Starring: James McAvoy, Daniel Radcliffe, Jessica Brown Findlay, Andrew Scott (or Prof. Xavier, Harry Potter, Lady Sybil, and Moriarty)
Release Date: 25 November 2015 (but it took FOREVER to release onto DVD)
Length: 1 h 50 min

Rating: PG-13 for macabre images, violence and a sequence of destruction (that's seriously what it says)

Genre: Drama, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Well, after waiting a ridiculously long time for the film's release on Amazon, I finally watched the new Victor Frankenstein movie, starring Daniel Radcliffe, James McAvoy, and Jessica Brown Findlay. I expected it to be awful, and it wasn't, so that right there was enough to make me happy. But I was also impressed by a few things in the movie that I want to briefly comment on.

First, let's just get out of the way all the random BBC cameos. Was there anyone in this movie who hasn't worked for BBC? I don't think so. It was like a Muppet movie but with all BBC cameos. That was fun. 

Second, the physical appearance of Frankenstein's Monster. (It's probably not a SPOILER that the Monster gets created, but if you want the reveal of its physical appearance to be a surprise, skip this paragraph.) This is always a vital but difficult aspect of any Frankenstein adaptation: how to portray the Monster. Obviously, the most iconic is Boris Karloff's uncanny blend of life and death in the 1931 black and white Frankenstein. Other adaptations have gone out of their way to avoid making the Monster look too much like Boris Karloff's, but it's nearly impossible to replace an icon, and no other adaptations have ever succeeded in supplanting Karloff's Monster's place in pop culture. The makers of Victor Frankenstein obviously understood this, and so they didn't try to replace Karloff's Monster: they built on it. Frankenstein's Monster in this film is reminiscent enough of Karloff's to evoke that cultural touchstone in the viewer's mind, but different enough not to look like a direct copy. I found that stroke brilliant and sensitive. (Also the moment when someone mispronounced Frankenstein's name as "Fronk-in-shteen" = score.)

Thirdly, I really liked the focus on Igor as another of Victor Frankenstein's "creations." Since the focus of this movie wasn't on the Monster but rather on Igor, the makers of the film had to find another way to evoke the Frankenstein creation myth, and I thought it was very well done with the character of Igor. Victor took him from the circus and changed him from a misused, animalistic hunchback to a civilized, refined human being. At one point in the film, Victor claims that he created Igor. We can debate whether or not that's strictly true - just as we can debate whether it's true for Frankenstein's Monster.

The setting, costumes, visuals, and feel of the movie were imaginative and fun. It had that steampunk fantasy feel, but not to the point where it was overdone. I probably could have done without the demon monkey monster, but there had to be some element of horror in the film (since it was Frankenstein) so I guess maybe we needed the demon monkey for scares; the rest of the film was a little morbid but not really frightening. 

On to the acting. James McAvoy and Andrew Scott (the film's villain) are both fantastic actors, and it shows no matter what role they're in. McAvoy was perfect as the obsessive mad scientist and Scott was great as the similarly obsessive God-fearing policeman. Is there a mirroring going on there? I hadn't thought of that. That's kind of cool.

Jessica Brown Findlay (of Downton Abbey fame) is also great, though I'm not sure the role really let her show off her full acting talent, but that's OK. I can't exactly say the same thing for Daniel Radcliffe. I love him but I'm not going to lie and say he's a great actor. Harry Potter he could do, and did great, but this role naturally demanded a large spectrum of emotions and transformation, and Radcliffe just isn't really suited to that. A more seasoned and skilled actor could have played the role with about twenty times more pathos, complexity, ambiguity, and depth.

Also, the relationship between Igor and the female lead (played by Findlay) was a little hard to swallow. I can see them being friends, definitely, but it was hard for me to believe that Findlay's gorgeous and intellectually mature character would want to have a romantic relationship (and a bit more than that, too) with Radcliffe's sympathetic but rather flat character. That said, I liked the relationship that existed between Frankenstein (McAvoy) and Igor (Radcliffe). That one was a little more believable, and pretty well played overall.

Lastly, a small complaint: why does Victor Frankenstein always have to have a neglectful father and a brother who died young? Can we get some more creative plot points, please? It's becoming boringly predictable. I know not every Frankenstein adaptation has these elements, but most of the ones I've seen/read recently have. The dead brother plot point was well done in Kenneth Oppel's Frankenstein prequels, but now it's just getting to be a cliche. Frankenstein's brother doesn't have to die for him to be interested in creating life. Maybe he's just naturally curious. Or maybe there's some other reason; we can try to be a little more original than that.

WHY PARAMOUNT? (Or I have to wait a further unspecified length of time to see The Little Prince)

We continue waiting for the release of The Little Prince.

Over a year ago I posted the announcement that The Little Prince, the classic "children's story" by French author Antoine de Saint-Exupery would be made into an animated movie. Since then, for what feels like an age, I have been waiting for a mere RELEASE DATE for this movie. Then, just in the last few weeks, Little Prince merchandise began to appear at the mall. I hoped desperately that this was a sign the movie would be coming out in the U.S. soon, and apparently it was. But then catastrophe struck.

On Saturday, Mark Osborne, director of The Little Prince, tweeted that the film's release would be delayed. This was followed by another tweet announcing that the film "will in fact be released by another distributor later this year."

The most maddening part of this whole affair is that the film was scheduled for release one week after Osborne made his announcement. Now, no one knows when it's coming out.

To those of us who have been waiting for ever for this thing, Osborne advises that we head to Canada, as the film opens there this weekend.

Why Paramount would drop such a highly anticipated film adaptation of a book that has been translated into 250 languages and remained a classic since its publication in 1943 eludes me, but Osborne's reluctance to explain why Paramount dropped the film and his grateful acknowledgment of everyone who has offered "love and support in these strange times" makes me suspect that there's something else going on here and maybe it's not all entirely Paramount's fault. At least I can give them the benefit of the doubt, although I'm not feeling particularly generous toward Paramount at the moment.

So I guess I and my fellow Little Prince fans will be waiting a little (or a lot) longer.

On a different but not totally unrelated topic, I learned while researching facts about The Little Prince that Orson Welles, of Citizen Kane and War of the Worlds radio broadcast fame, bought the rights to the book immediately upon reading it, and tried to team up with Walt Disney to turn the book into a film. Reportedly (though I'm not sure this is true, but who knows), Walt Disney stormed out of the meeting shouting, "There is not room on this lot for two geniuses."

Maybe there isn't room in this world for The Little Prince. Whatever else we may think we know or don't know about him, it's clear at least that he's much too delicate, innocent, and intensely alive to last long here. Wasn't the whole book concerned with his attempt to return to his own planet?

Whatever the case, I still hope to see this film adaptation sometime before I die.

Articles consulted in the research for this post:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/03/12/little-prince-film-release-mysteriously-delayed/81694556/

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-little-prince-release-date/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64148/12-charming-facts-about-little-prince

[Not] Here at the end of all things (or WHY DID THE LAST EXTENDED EDITION HOBBIT FILM HAVE TO BE RATED R???)

Those of you who have been following this blog for a while may have guessed that I like Tolkien a bit.

You would be right.

Of all my posts on this blog, I think the one subject I've written the most on is Tolkien - his life, his work, and adaptations of his stories - especially the Hobbit movies.

Ah, the Hobbit movies.

I speak disparagingly of them but I have a rather fond affection for the films, even while I question some (or most) of the choices Peter Jackson and team made with them.

Parts of the films were fantastic.

If you've been following this blog for a while, you may also have noticed how closely I've followed the Hobbit movies, from the first trailers to the films themselves and extended editions thereafter. Despite my disappointment with the films, I've faithfully attended theaters (twice at midnight) to view Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies, always returning in spite of previous disappointments.

I psyche myself up until I'm super excited, go to the theater, watch the movie, come home feeling let down, mope around the house for a few days, and end up buying the extended edition.

All things considered, I think I'm a pretty loyal fan.

Imagine my reaction, then, when my brother called to relay some shocking news related to the final extended edition Hobbit film.

It's rated R.

I didn't believe him.

But when I did an online search and saw from multiple entertainment news sources that the extended edition of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies will, in fact, be an R-rated film, I had to believe it.

So why is this such a big deal? (You may ask.)

I don't watch R-rated films.

(Why not?)

For religious reasons and as a matter of principal, I choose not to view things that are significantly disturbing or inappropriate. This has led to a degree of disappointment over the years as I've heard time and time again about a movie that sounds exciting only to find out later that it's rated R. 

But I never thought the day would come when I'd have to skip out on a Lord of the Rings movie because of an R-rating.

I feel betrayed. 

Peter Jackson made three wonderful movies out of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, none of which were rated R. He proceeded to make three less wonderful but still enjoyable movies out of The Hobbit. None of these were rated R. Now, on the absolutely final movie - with the absolutely final release of that movie (the one thing I still could look forward to even though the official trilogy had come to an end) he pulls out an R-rating. "Disappointed" doesn't even cover it.

Yes, I could go see the movie anyway. After all, no one's holding a gun to my head forcing me not to watch R-rated movies. And I'm old enough to make these decisions for myself. But I've already made my decision, a long time ago, in fact, and I've only cemented it over the years. Here, at the end of all things, is one Tolkien movie I won't be seeing.

I wonder what Tolkien would say - but that's speculative and therefore irrelevant.

Thank you, Peter Jackson, for some wonderful movies and a fun (if rocky) ride. I'm sorry I can't be there at the end of all things. But I'm also sorry that you had to prevent me from coming. I'm sure we can still be friends.

My reaction on hearing that the extended edition of Battle of the Five Armies will be rated R

If you've finished reading this little complaint, I very much want to know what you think about the last extended edition Hobbit movie being rated R. Do you feel miffed with me? Or do you find my viewpoint rather extreme? A shire-farthing for your thoughts.

Your early Christmas present: Le Petit Prince

Happy December, everyone! I hope your plans for the Holidays are going well, and that you aren't drowning in finals and/or Christmas shopping. Now down to business.

If you haven't yet, watch this trailer NOW:



The Little Prince 

Premieres October 7th, 2015 in France.

Apparently they are also planning on making a version in English, but I'm kind of thinking I'd rather watch the French one. I don't know when the movie will be released in the U.S.

For (slightly) more info, head over to this article by the Verge:
The Little Prince could be one of the most beautiful animated films of 2015

“The most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched, they are felt with the heart.”   

  - Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince