A Princess and a Problem: Disney's Next-Gen Princess Movies (Girlcember Part 1)

Hello hello!

Sorry for the intermittent posts. You do not want to know how many manuscripts I have edited in the last couple of months. No, really, you DON'T.

Tonight, I got the chance to see Frozen with my boyfriend Andrey and his brilliant little sister. I was expecting it to be okay. Probably about Brave good, or Princess and the Frog good--that is, mediocre for Disney but not childhood-shatteringly bad.

What I got was a masterpiece that made my inner feminist jump up and down in glee, made my inner twelve-year-old jump up and down in glee, and my almost twenty-four-year-old outer self curse the bastard who had been cutting onions in the theatre.

Now, this is an analysis, so it goes without saying that there will be

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS 

...so turn back before it's too late if you haven't seen the movies yet! 

Right. Good? Good. 

I would love to gush about the movie, its design, and everything amazing, but in order to make sense of why it's so special, we need context. Serious context. Are you ready? Then let's kick off Girlcember with an analysis of why Frozen is so solid, and why its predecessors just didn't work. We're doing this in stages, and let's flash back to 2009.

Source.  So close, and yet so far.

Precursors, Part 1: The Princess and the Fail 

In addition to the numerous equality issues (link) regarding the portrayal of the African American MC--who spent most of the movie as a frog--TPaTF suffers from a mixture of both too much effort and too little. Disney's history with PoC--Princesses of Colour as well as People of Colour, in this case--is noticeably spotty. This movie, for me, had 'try-hard' written all over it. I was nervous but excited for the setting. I love jazz, equality issues, and Disney, so what could go wrong?

Well...everything, I guess. While Naveen was a noticeably excellent and well-developed hero, Tiana was kinda thin. She works her butt off, but the movie's endorsement of workaholic behavior, skirting around equality issues, and her excessively perfect personality just didn't make it gel. As with Ariel, she doesn't really grow or experience a serious challenge that requires her to change. Again, it's not bad, and it's worth marathoning, but the company was so scared of doing something offensive that it managed to be offensively bland instead. I appreciate that she was a hard-working and intelligent young woman, and that she earned everything she got, with the prince basically being a nice bonus. I liked that they had time and fantastic reasons to fall in love, and although it was inaccurate and a bit...ah, how do we put this?...stereotypical in the way it portrayed voodoun, I thought the various kinds of magic were pretty neat. That was a nice change, at least. That's a good description of the movie, though; 'nice'. But that's about it. 

 Source. Again, so close, but so far.

Precursors, Part 2: I Know It's Cheating, but Let's Mention Enchanted Anyway 

Enchanted came out in that really awkward period where Disney was trying to...I don't know, pretend its princess movies weren't a thing, I guess. There were piles and heaps of criticism of the princesses, particularly by White Women's Issues Weekly, but even I've done a post on issues with them.

I admit that I liked Enchanted, especially in the vicious bits of satire--I howl every time the rats and cockroaches and pigeons come up in that animal friend singing scene. I love the fairy tale prince. However, the queen, Nancy, and the single father love interest--I can't even be arsed to look up his name--were bland. The movie makes fun of Disney's heritage, but Giselle never does anything violent or really that subversive. Sure, she holds a sword and sort of accidentally knocks the bad CGI dragon off, but her purity is never questioned. I like the reversals and the satire and the whole-hearted goofiness of its parts, but it leans on tropes, and that injures the whole. I do like that it dealt with divorce, actual work, and differing ideas of beauty--Giselle, for example, sees the beauty in 'ordinary' women and manages to make the 'looking at the world with naive eyes' thing work. However, it plays the whole game too safe and yet manages to be too cynical in the same stroke. So, I like the movie, but like TPaTF, it's uncomfortable with itself.

So, I don't want to cram in too many ideas and mess up the length; let's tackle Brave and Tangled in the next post, and then, finally, we'll talk about Frozen and why I think it's the crowning achievement. 

See you soon!

*****

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr. More interviews and witty commentaries are coming. Keep checking back to see those surprise posts, too. This is your darling SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Stark Raving Mad: The Avengers Review (Part 2)

Aaaand we're back!

I mentioned high-pitched squealing noises in my previous review, and I have to say, I'm making them. This movie was not just good, it induced multiple awesomegasms. I realise that this sentiment has been echoing across the internet (and movie theatres)

What has been said before shall be said again:

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS. AND MORE SPOILERS!

There. You have been warned. Now shut the hell up and enjoy the ride.

It barely needs saying, but The Avengers is a delicious, whole-hearted, gleeful joyride into and through the heart of superhero movies. From the first shots of Samuel L. Jackson badassing his way through the role of Nick Fury to the action-packed, exploding space whale finale in New York, it's a loving tribute to the comics that goes above and beyond its origins.

Source.

Plot: The plot is pretty straightforward: Find the McGuffin Cube, fight over it with the bad guys, find McGuffin Cube again and prevent its use as a weapon to bring the armies of Gears of War aliens to shitstorm Earth. It's not exactly rocket science, unlike the delightful technobabble swapped by Stark and Banner's characters. There is a lot of shiny technology, 'I WANT ONE OF THOSE' moments, and all of the pretty stuff--even Scarlett Johannson's costume--is practical. Joss Whedon knew that we weren't going to see a Marvel movie for the plot, but he respects the audience's intelligence, and that's a nice change. Sure, there's lots of booming noises and pretty explosions, and the glorious special effects that $220 million can buy, but the really special thing about this movie is the character interaction.

The Special Sauce:And oh, the character interaction. My inner quote monster is tempted to copy/paste every beautiful line I can think of, but this is one of those times when that would be insufficient. With Tony Stark bouncing around, exuding as much charisma as only Robert Downey Jr. can bring, and several alpha males in the same room, you're bound to have a great mix. And, to their credit, not only do the actors play off each other well, the comedy feels genuine and spontaneous. It's a definite Whedon touch. I was never much of a Whedon fangirl, being lukewarm on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and, yes, Firefly, but when a film like this showcases such a deft touch of comedy, it's impossible not to melt. Avengers is a fantastic action movie, but like Iron Man, it is hilarious and may just be the funniest movie of the year. Small visual jokes, such as Tony Stark's Black Sabbath t-shirt, and fast-paced, off-the-cuff verbal wit make it a delectably quotable film.

The other (pardon the pun) marvel in this film is the way the alpha males fight and jockey for their positions. It makes sense that a bunch of super-powered larger-than-life dudes in the same room would start to compete, and Whedon takes this to its logical extremes. The scenes involving the various Avengers fighting each other literally (not figuratively) made my jaw drop in delight. Watching Tony Stark and Thor pummel each other, and Stark take the piss out of Steve Rogers, were some of the most delightful moments in the movie. Roger Ebert flippantly passed over the chest-pounding, testosterone-contest moments, but they really do establish that a team is built, not just assembled like a crew of Transformers toys in a Chinese factory.

Notable Characters:

Black Widow:There is a heavy emphasis on men in the movie--virtually all of the heroes are male, and with a comic book audience, it's impossible not to be aware that the majority of fans will be dudes. However, in spite of her Smurfette role within the group, Natasha Romanoff is a pretty solid addition. The fact that her Russian is terrible is forgiveable because her character is quietly complex. Johansson makes for a solid Black Widow who seems aware that she is not super-powered. She never tries to compete with the men on the same level, but she uses her presumed feminine weakness to emotionally manipulate him. Apart from the supernumerative shots of her Calliphygean butt, her costume is relatively practical--waterproof and skintight, and including full coverage of all parts, without even a stupid cleavage rip. She acts like a spy and remains committed to S.H.I.E.L.D. when others lose faith, and her romance(?) is given far less emphasis and airtime than the mentions of her history as a vicious assasin. In other words, they treat her like a man without making a fuss about it, and boy is it a pleasant change from every other hero film ever. I hope it continues, with more chicks in the cast, because it's a lot more fun to watch a film when the female lead isn't given as much of a boobs-centred special status.

Iron Man:Tony Stark is a scene-stealing delight every single moment he's on screen. Robert Downey Jr. manages to play desperate wit with savage humour and self-respect that some 'real' comedians could do well to learn from. He also ends up commanding respect from the uptight Captain America and smug Thor, which is no small task. Most touching moments centred around the way his love for Pepper Potts was subtly emphasized and his immediate attachment to Bruce Banner. Mark Ruffalo played a compassionate scientist perfectly and believably--it was hard to believe his name wasn't Steve and that he didn't work in a physics lab in real life. The way these two intelligent men struck up a buddy relationship was--I have no other word for this--adorable.I'm just going to leave this picture here now.

Sorry, no source for this awesomeness.

Faults:Technically, because I like to review things (even though I fuck with the formatting for newer releases, rather than being consistent as in 'Missed It' reviews--I do that to bother you) I am supposed to pick holes in them. And I'm having a hard time doing that with The Avengers, but it is possible. I'm relying heavily on Andrey for this, since the large group of attractive and charismatic geek friends that I saw this with were unable to come up with problems for it. Still, as was noted in the Thor review, Loki is a villain with very poorly defined motivations. Sure, he's fun to watch, but "I want to take over the world!...Vaguely!" is pretty blah. One isn't necessarily expecting Shakespearean complexity (I'm looking at you, Branaugh) but some complexity is nice. What we get is "Hey, I just got here, and I am crazy, but you're all ants and I'm conquering, maybe." I guess a poorly-defined "I want to rule the world!" villain is sort of refreshing after all the 'revenge/competition/he stole my idea and my girl' plots we're usually offered. Still, something deeper would have been appreciated. The alien Chitauri are also sort of lame, but hey, they have space whales, so it's okay.

Also, we're not going to talk about science, because trying to explain the science in Marvel comics movies makes the people with physics and chemistry degrees end up in the rooms with the padded walls and curiously restrictive white tuxes whilst making high-pitched buzzing noises. My aforementioned buddies agreed that a formidable drinking game could be constructed around every moment in which comics violate real-world science. Other than these nitpicks, and the usual whingeing about 3-D being all blurry and shit (I enjoyed it for this movie, actually), it's pretty hard to punch holes in such a wonderful, childishly awesome action movie. And with that, I'm going to end the review on plans to schedule in my next viewing, preferably with as many of my friends as possible.

Well, that's our show for today. Get your asses back here for more reviews, funny and insightful thoughts, and teasing information about my more formal writing. Yes, I know I keep promising it, and it's coming. We'll be back to destroying the future you know and love soon, but in the meantime, follow me on Twitter at SciFiMagpie. This is your SciFiMagpie, over and out!

Still Thor About It: The Avengers Reviews (Part 1)

Hello hello!

There comes a time when one must bite the bullet and see a movie whether or not it's good for the sake of reviewing. Even if watching it is agonizingly boring, or even painful, there are things that as reviewers, we have a duty to talk about. Captain America and yes, Thor, were movies that fit into this category. The Avengers, however, was not. Before I get to the high-pitched squealing noises that are going to accompany the review for The Avengers, though, I feel duty-bound to yell at Marvel for a few minutes regarding the shameful fuckery that was Thor and the somewhat decent Captain America movie. Also,

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS. AND MORE SPOILERS!

There. You have been warned. Now shut the hell up and enjoy the ride.

So: Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. The reason I'm even making this a menage a' trois is that in order to understand and enjoy what the fuck was going on in the Avengers movie, I deemed it necessary to force these two down my throat the night before. Since Andrey liked both Hulk movies, and since both of us loved the Iron Man movies, those were no-brainers. Robert Downey Jr.'s charisma and wit as Stark were so enjoyable that nothing more can be said about him in the role, and Edward Norton played a sensitive, intelligent, haunted Hulk to perfection. Sure, all four movies had some very ridiculous moments, but the Hulk movies were nicely dark and atmospheric and the Iron Man movies were funny, enthusiastic, and got the updated atmosphere across nicely.

Oh, how I wish I could say the same for Thor. At the risk of getting crucified by the fangirls drooling over the admittedly luscious Chris Hemsworth, this movie sucked. I'm always down for a B-movie, don't get me wrong. I have a review of Wrath of the Titans that will be up soon. Give me gloriously goofy overacting, give me crazy effects, and I am one happy little bird. However, Thor just...failed. Roger Ebert, in spite of his relentless geek-spearing, has already gutted this one pretty nicely, but I'm going to have to add my voice to the small crowd of people proclaiming that it just sucked.

Source.Thanks, Wiki, this summarizes the movie nicely.

The forced romance with Natalie Portman's character was about as natural as my "Kissing Simba and Nala" toys in childhood, and a lot less adorable. Hemsworth is a surprisingly boring Thor, playing a boorish and dully adaptable thug who under-hulks The Hulk. Odin is fine, sure, but it's Anthony Hopkins; and even then, he seems pretty bored. Loki is a lot more interesting than Thor, which unfortunately isn't saying much. His motivation as a villain is basically the adolescent rebellion of an adopted child. I'm not even going to mention what happened to mythology in this film, because it will give me an anyeurism, but suffice to say that the great Edith Hamilton's Mythology was probably not a reference guide. That's a big problem, because the Norse gods had a sense of grandeur that derived from a very dark and not-happy history. Putting Thor in a silly, brightly-coloured movie means you need to either overdo the darkness or find a good way to compensate for its disappearance, and that just doesn't happen here. And without the darkness, you have a hero that is just impossible to care about.Thor has nothing to lose annd his origins aren't very interesting, and when you take those away, you lose the propellants of superhero movies.

This isn't a veggie burger when you're expecting a double-patty bacon cheeseburger--it's more like two buns with some ketchup and lettuce. The scariest and saddest thing about this piece of drek was that it was directed by Kenneth Branaugh, the gentleman who does a most bitchin' job with Shakespeare and is usually a good director. What went wrong, Kenneth? What went wrong? the script-writing was obviously hurried to save some resources for the Avengers, but there is neither the grandeur and conviction I was hoping for nor the balls-out full-bore goofiness that would also have been acceptable. It's closer to the latter than the former, but the note just doesn't work. A little more comedy would have fixed this movie up nicely, but unfortunately, there were no lols to be had. What can I say? Son, I am disappoint.

Source.And it is, in fact, an origin story. Imagine that.

Now that you've probably flipped a table, let's give Captain America: The First Avenger a run-down. This film was much better--deliciously goofy 'scary' Nazis, Hugo Weaving as a villain (that's a bonus in itself), a nicely sepia'd atmosphere, and a suggestion of humanity and personality to the other Big Blue Boy Scout, Captain America. The lack of fulfilment with the female candy character and a faint suggestion that she was actually capable of doing her job well were nice elements. The hint of loss and sweet banality that their relationship brought to the movie made her time on-screen a million times more tolerable than every teeth-gritting moment with Natalie Portman's 'astrophysicist' in Thor. Also, there's something about the way he said, "I had a date" that really haunted me. You can tell he cared about that date.

The biggest weakness in the film is its uneven pacing. For some reason, it seems to speed up, then slow down, then speed up again. Possibly the late-night, post-Thor timing was to blame, but the middle of this movie is hard to sit through and drags like a Libyan bottom-trawler's nets. The awkward 'is the movie done?' feeling that comes after the first act was also confusing; I suspect there were some director's cuts that messed up the flow. Finally, I'm going to complain that Bucky is kind of a crappy friend. He picks on Steve Rogers, which is sort of fine, but you don't really get the sense of support. If anything, Tony Stark's father is more supportive, and a real scene-stealer.

Still, I was expecting a bland, hyper-American patriotism sandwich. Shockingly, it wasn't anything like that--if anything, the patriotism was underplayed. The metaphors got heavy-handed, but for a superhero movie it wasn't too bad. The biggest strength is that the actor, Chris Evans, did a really fine job as Captain America. Steve Rogers is a skinny geek with a tough heart, and even after being juiced up, he never really loses that scrappy soldier vibe. He's got a certain earnest goodness that was surprisingly refreshing. Given that he ends up in a block of ice at the end (and beginning) of the movie, we're not going to get a Captain America 2, but I for one would be willing to watch him walk around the 21st century world for a bit and adjust to it. The magnificent Alan Moore gave us an inside look at what the world is like for vigilantes and superheroes in The Watchmen,and it's almost a shame that we'll never get to see a Watchmen style realistic treatment for the Captain.

That concludes the first part of our program...stay tuned for a review of The Avengers in the second half! The SciFiMagpie will be back after these messages.

I Admit I Snacked A Lot: The Hunger Games Book Review

Yes, it's finally here.

After a week off while I recovered from a work-induced productivity slump, I have a treat for you: time for another review!

As most of North America is more than aware, The Hunger Games debued this weekend in theatres. I am keen to see it, but I never watch a film that I have not read the book for unless I am unaware of the book's existence.

Comparisions to Twilight (a series that will get its just desserts in a rant in the future) had me worried. Would another three or four years of idiotic fascination with hideously poor writing and cardboard characters grip the nation? Would another set of equally bland male babes and an anifeminist heroine serve as the newest and hottest role models? Would the prose be slipshod and poorly written enough to finally make me lose my shit?

Thanks, memebase! You can describe my feelings on almost anything!

Initial Prognosis

Fortunately for my 19th century novel-reading, academic, feministic-egalitarian little magpie soul, the answer is a solid and comforting 'no'. The Hunger Games are not perfect, but they are no vampire softcore romp. Let's start by breaking some hearts. I warn you in advance that this will be a fairly critical review, and I am going to focus on the things that don't work. That said, you're welcome to fanrage in the comments below. Cool? Cool.

The plot is not the most original, but I am not going to dock too many points for that. The impact of the games and the reality TV analogy are blunt and they work beautifully. I want to digress and go on about the well-constructed psychological awareness of both viewers and characters, and metagaming by Katniss and Peeta, but right now I am poking holes.

What's Love Got To Do With It

Gale: Gale is flat and uncompelling as a love interest. Her mother and sister are given actual personality and in contrast he falls flat. The love story that follows is well explored enough, especially in Katniss' mind, but t feels forced. Peeta's sweet nature makes him a serious contender and the audience is given some variety from the old home court best friend advantage trope, but the conflict feels forced. Someone give this boy a cookie.

Katniss: Katniss also seems over-powered and overly competent at first. (This is developed very well later and her skills are realistic, and her bravado and confidence are too realistically teenage for me not to like her.) Her recollections of her father are also forced, but so genuinely felt and moving that I enjoyed them very much. I look forward to seeing how she is developed in the next two books. I admit I like the way she's extremely mature and yet frequently impulsive and rebellious: if that's not a realistically portrayed teenage trait, I don't know what is.

Peeta: I absolutely love the way the author limits Katniss' perspective on Peeta and gives him complexity from the get-go. He's a better human being than Katniss is, but in no way is he an Edward, described as too good for the heroine while lacking the skills or cred to back it up. That said...the name. Was the spelling really necessary? It's a little detail, but it made my eyes itch.

Please, Sweat the Technique

Finally, the exposition. Oh god the exposition, IT BURNS. Not unlike salt, my favorte seasoning treat, a bit is great, but less is more. Too much of either results in an upset stomach, dehydration, and heart problems. The tangients and exposition are sometimes distracting and annoying. A barrage of detail here works better than elsewhere, and is often very heartfelt without too much maudlin violin solos or mawkishness,but it is still used too heavily. The prose itself is pretty rocky at points, but this is more bearable than usual for such cases. Still, a little more polish for prettier sentences wouldn't've gone amiss.

...But the descriptions of food and natural beauty made me forgive a lot. I had to make soup and boil some baby golden potatoes (no, not boil babies, what were YOU snacking on?) while reading this book. It made me famished; for good hearty food. Mmmm...foood....I need a minute.

Okay, back after a sammich.

Ahem. Katniss' emotional descriptions are no less conpellig than her meals and snacks. The death of Rue moved me to throat lumps. It was not quite on par with, say, the death of Hamlet or Mordin (10/10) but it got an 8 for sure. Shakesperian grandeur is a sure-fire winning element in the book. Cato's death seemed rushed, I have to say, and he doesn't really live up to the sinister reputation he's given, but the nasty ending here was also very satisfying.

Finally the pacing. Oh god the pacing. Speaking as an author, this book schooled me. The editing was probably great, but a natural flow that is smooth as glass made all the other little faults work.

Final verdict?

A solid 8 out of 10. I was talking about this book all night and I rushed off to write my review the moment I'd finished it. A great hook and a thought-provoking read about economic circumstances in the modern day got me interested, the dry wit is well-used, and it's about time we had a satire on reality TV as self-aware as this one. Now, if you will excusr me I need to call the speciality butcher about rabbit to roast for this weekend.

Oh, and Happy Easter, everyone!

Love me, share me, read more about me on Twitter at SciFiMagpie and back here on the blog. Coming soon: more about dystopias, why they are the best subgenre of sci fi, and soon, a Hunger Games movie review. Plus more teasers about the end of civilization through love!