Search
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Atypical Plays for Atypical Actors
Book
Although disabled characters appear often in plays within the Western theatrical tradition, seldom...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Cooties (2015) in Movies
Aug 14, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off a warning, Cooties is a Zombie film where the zombies are children so, if you don't like violence against children than this really isn't the film for you.
Clint (Elijah Wood) moves back to his home town to work on his book and takes a job as a substitute teacher at his old school. On his first day a virus breaks out that turns all the children into zombies. Clint and the other teachers fight to escaper the school and find out what is happening.
Cooties is quite a self aware film, in one of the first scenes Clint askes his mother what she thought of his book and she tells him that the the characters are unlikable, the plot makes no sense and it's boring, the first one of those is true, most of the characters are unlikable, at least at the start of the film. The pre-zombie children are brats and the teachers range from meek to bullies. Making the children unlikable is necessary because of what happens later.
Some of the teachers do undergo character growth, as I said they start off unlikable but a few of them become more likeable as we find out what made them become teachers and how they react to the situation.
Saying that though, Cooties is not an overly cleaver film, it's a zombie film that uses horror tropes; people are trapped in small rooms, there are air vents, people get eaten and, despite how it starts there is no big message to the film. I say despite how it starts because I did think that it was going to be a big 'Anti Meat' film but any sigh of that is forgotten very soon and, apart from a slight pro-teacher message the film soon becomes another zombie flick, it doesn't even have the usual political undertones like the night of the living dead film.
Over all Cooties is generally a good zombie film but I think it will lose a big chunk of it's audience because it becomes quite violent as the teaches have to fight the children to get out.
Don't expect anything great, Cooties is just another zombie film with a gimmick that some will find distasteful but, if you like your zombie films with a bit of humour and mindless action and you can look past the fact the zombies are children then give Cooties a go.
One last thing, I did find myself asking, if the air vent is big enough to fit to small adults side by side then it must have been big enough for a large man so any one could have gone on the mission.
Clint (Elijah Wood) moves back to his home town to work on his book and takes a job as a substitute teacher at his old school. On his first day a virus breaks out that turns all the children into zombies. Clint and the other teachers fight to escaper the school and find out what is happening.
Cooties is quite a self aware film, in one of the first scenes Clint askes his mother what she thought of his book and she tells him that the the characters are unlikable, the plot makes no sense and it's boring, the first one of those is true, most of the characters are unlikable, at least at the start of the film. The pre-zombie children are brats and the teachers range from meek to bullies. Making the children unlikable is necessary because of what happens later.
Some of the teachers do undergo character growth, as I said they start off unlikable but a few of them become more likeable as we find out what made them become teachers and how they react to the situation.
Saying that though, Cooties is not an overly cleaver film, it's a zombie film that uses horror tropes; people are trapped in small rooms, there are air vents, people get eaten and, despite how it starts there is no big message to the film. I say despite how it starts because I did think that it was going to be a big 'Anti Meat' film but any sigh of that is forgotten very soon and, apart from a slight pro-teacher message the film soon becomes another zombie flick, it doesn't even have the usual political undertones like the night of the living dead film.
Over all Cooties is generally a good zombie film but I think it will lose a big chunk of it's audience because it becomes quite violent as the teaches have to fight the children to get out.
Don't expect anything great, Cooties is just another zombie film with a gimmick that some will find distasteful but, if you like your zombie films with a bit of humour and mindless action and you can look past the fact the zombies are children then give Cooties a go.
One last thing, I did find myself asking, if the air vent is big enough to fit to small adults side by side then it must have been big enough for a large man so any one could have gone on the mission.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
The premise of Jojo Rabbit is a bold one, and something that could have very easily been executed terribly on-screen.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
As good as the first - just not my thing
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan sees Borat return to the USA after the humiliation he caused his country in the first movie.
This time Borat is returning to America to get “Mac”Donald Trump to acknowledge the Premier of Kazakhstan as his friend and ally, and it couldn’t be more different than the first film. Borat is now a recognisable face across the globe so Sacha Baron Cohen can no longer parade around the streets and dupe unsuspecting members of the public. Instead he has to don ridiculously terrible disguises that surprisingly still fool people, and also put Maria Bakalova as his daughter Tutar front and centre with a large portion of the scenes.
For the most part, this works as Bakalova is a fantastic actress and she’s a delight to watch. Alongside Cohen who works his magic yet again, you can’t help but marvel at their guts and acting prowess at pulling off these stunts with a straight face. And not only this, but they excel just as well at the sweet and heartwarming side of this film that focuses on the father daughter relationship and female empowerment.
My biggest issues with this film (and it’s predecessor) probably come down to personal taste. I laughed a fair amount watching this and there are some crazy scenes that you can’t help but chuckle at – the synagogue and cosmetic surgery clinic to name a couple. I also thought the twist ending was absolute genius. However I’m not a huge fan of hidden camera type comedy that goes beyond humour and into cringeworthy and embarrassing, and sadly Borat does this a lot, even to the point where it’s crude and disgusting. This is just my personal view, as I just don’t find comedy funny if it’s making me cringe. There’s bad taste that’s funny and bad taste that goes too far, and for me Borat features both of these. Fortunately the former just about prevails and doesn’t make the film too uncomfortable. What helps is the political themes and motivations that are so ably managed and highlighted, and the fact that they’ve managed to seamlessly integrate the COVID-19 pandemic into the filming which is pretty impressive.
Cohen has been very smart when it comes to releasing this film, in the hope that it may have some impact on the upcoming election. Frankly after watching this, I’d be surprised if it didn’t. The scene featuring Rudy Giuliani, which has been very well publicised over the past few weeks, is both fascinating and creepily disturbing in equal parts and if this doesn’t hamper the public’s opinion of him, I don’t know what will.
Overall this is a very smart and daring film with two fantastic actors. There has been a lot of debate over whether this is better or worse than the original, but for me it’s just more of the same. But if you loved the first one, you’ll love this.
This time Borat is returning to America to get “Mac”Donald Trump to acknowledge the Premier of Kazakhstan as his friend and ally, and it couldn’t be more different than the first film. Borat is now a recognisable face across the globe so Sacha Baron Cohen can no longer parade around the streets and dupe unsuspecting members of the public. Instead he has to don ridiculously terrible disguises that surprisingly still fool people, and also put Maria Bakalova as his daughter Tutar front and centre with a large portion of the scenes.
For the most part, this works as Bakalova is a fantastic actress and she’s a delight to watch. Alongside Cohen who works his magic yet again, you can’t help but marvel at their guts and acting prowess at pulling off these stunts with a straight face. And not only this, but they excel just as well at the sweet and heartwarming side of this film that focuses on the father daughter relationship and female empowerment.
My biggest issues with this film (and it’s predecessor) probably come down to personal taste. I laughed a fair amount watching this and there are some crazy scenes that you can’t help but chuckle at – the synagogue and cosmetic surgery clinic to name a couple. I also thought the twist ending was absolute genius. However I’m not a huge fan of hidden camera type comedy that goes beyond humour and into cringeworthy and embarrassing, and sadly Borat does this a lot, even to the point where it’s crude and disgusting. This is just my personal view, as I just don’t find comedy funny if it’s making me cringe. There’s bad taste that’s funny and bad taste that goes too far, and for me Borat features both of these. Fortunately the former just about prevails and doesn’t make the film too uncomfortable. What helps is the political themes and motivations that are so ably managed and highlighted, and the fact that they’ve managed to seamlessly integrate the COVID-19 pandemic into the filming which is pretty impressive.
Cohen has been very smart when it comes to releasing this film, in the hope that it may have some impact on the upcoming election. Frankly after watching this, I’d be surprised if it didn’t. The scene featuring Rudy Giuliani, which has been very well publicised over the past few weeks, is both fascinating and creepily disturbing in equal parts and if this doesn’t hamper the public’s opinion of him, I don’t know what will.
Overall this is a very smart and daring film with two fantastic actors. There has been a lot of debate over whether this is better or worse than the original, but for me it’s just more of the same. But if you loved the first one, you’ll love this.
Goldenarrow74 (10 KP) rated My Scientology Movie (2015) in Movies
Jun 3, 2018
Frustrating but still unashamedly Louis
Now this is a good one:
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
Never meet your heroes is the succinct tag line of this Amazon original series, dealing with the notion that all superheroes are morally good… but what if they weren’t…?
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 9, 2019
I'm always wary heading into comedies, and the majority of my reviews for the genre usually open with some intro along those lines. On the whole I'm usually disappointed with what I see, particularly as the trailers tend to show literally every single laugh out loud moment from the film, leaving very little else to enjoy. Mrs B joined me for this particular cinema trip, and we have a bit of a track record recently for picking movies to go and see together which then turn out to be a disappointment, so I was doubly worried. Coincidentally, as we pulled into the cinema car park, an ad for Long Shot played on the radio. It's outrageously funny! Absolutely hilarious! The funniest movie in years! Etc etc... All the usual claims, and mighty big words to live up to.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Whole New World in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
“What if Aladdin had never found the lamp?”
OK so I am going to start off this review with a really pedantic comment and I know I am being petty and that this will almost definitely end in a rant but… he does find the lamp! Of course he does! Aladdin is the diamond in the rough! He is literally the only one who can find the lamp. If he didn’t find the lamp nothing would happen: Jasmine would probably grow old with her tiger; Jafar would carry on hypnotising the Sultan; Aladdin would probably wind up arrested and this would be the shortest twisted tale in history.
*Ahem*
So, Aladdin finds the lamp. Let’s move past it, because if you have read my other reviews, you will know I love Liz Braswell: her twisted tales always wind up being my favourites as she always brings something completely unexpected to the novels. In the circumstances, I can forgive the tagline.
This review of “A Whole New World” comes at a time where Aladdin is everywhere: the live action movie was released in the UK just over a month ago and, I for one, loved it! With this in mind, I just had to re-read this twisted tale and shout about the wholly different Agrabah that it presents to the reader.
Braswell’s Agrabah is a raw, dirty, troubled cousin of the Agrabah we all know and love. I struggle to comprehend exactly how the movies did it, because both showed starving children, but we found ourselves simultaneously accepting and glossing over the poverty of the street rats. We have no such option in “A Whole New World”.
From starving infants; old men shovelling camel dung for coins; to Aladdin’s own mother dying of a wasting disease: this novel takes no prisoners in the Quarter of the Street Rats. However, those in the Palace remain blind to the struggles of the poor, with the Sultan playing with his golden toys whilst some of his citizens have no food or clean water.
The plight of the Agrabah people creates an undercurrent of resentment that runs all the way through Aladdin and Jasmine’s story. It is also a clear indicator of the identity of this novel: Braswell has taken all the romanticism of the familiar story and buried it in her own cave of wonders, leaving behind a highly political but incredibly powerful story.
The twisted tale starts off on a similar vein to both movies, boy meets girl, boy rescues girl from hand severing businessman, boy winds up arrested and transported to a creepy cave where he finds an old lamp, boy’s monkey can’t keep his hands to himself and boy is left clinging on for his life at the entrance to said creepy cave. However, in this version, when Jafar steps on Aladdin’s fingers to prevent his escape, Abu doesn’t grab the lamp! How will Aladdin escape now?
As is to be expected from Braswell’s novels, the characters are phenomenal. Aladdin is the proud, eternal optimist that we recognise but with a strong ethical viewpoint that is introduced by the inclusion of his mother as a character.
Creating a new character, particularly Aladdin’s mother, could simply be a tactic to give some history to the charming thief. However, Braswell uses the matriarch to add depth to Aladdin: she tells him “don’t let how poor you are, decide who you are…you can choose to be something more”.
This is ultimately the lesson the genie would teach Aladdin if they were to meet and so I think it is very clever of Braswell to keep this element of Aladdin’s character. It allows us to witness Aladdin’s pride and strength through these instilled virtues: he has even lost friends over his views of when he considers it acceptable to be a thief.
Although I wouldn’t consider the genie a main character in this tale (he doesn’t get as much airtime as in the films): he remains a funny and flippant sidekick for the most part. However, in keeping with the tone of “A Whole New World”, he does use this humour to provoke our thoughts. The genie and Braswell divulge that there was once a whole race of djinn who have since died out. The genie has lost his home, his wife and his freedom and so, he rightly asks, who would stay sane under those conditions?
Jafar; Mr dark and twisty himself, is a whole other level of evil in this twisted tale. He does present some of the characteristics of the movie villain: power mad, desperate for everyone to love him and all that jazz; however, he also tortures the genie and plans to break the laws of magic in order to create an army of the dead. It’s all very game of thrones all of a sudden!
I know what you’re thinking: what about Jasmine? Surely, she isn’t all dark and twisty as well? The girl looks good in turquoise baggy trousers for goodness sakes!
Jasmine begins her journey as the typical naïve, sheltered princess she is always portrayed as: possessing no knowledge of the price of food or the struggles of her own people. However, Braswell manages to make even the live-action Jasmine appear over-dramatic and petty: she isn’t resisting marriage just because she doesn’t fancy random foreign prince number 3; she is resisting becoming a “baby making machine” and signing herself up to an early grave.
“A princess among men”, Jasmine and the reader soon realise that she has to step forward and become the hero of this tale. This is no small ask for someone who has never led an army or witnessed death before. Nonetheless, Jasmine is clearly up to the task: this is no weak princess trapped in an hourglass of sand, waiting to be rescued by a man. This is a Sultana!
The story of Aladdin typically conjures up images of love, magic carpets and romantic duets. Liz Braswell’s story of Agrabah does orbit around love, how could it not? However, “A Whole New World” explores the shades of grey in life: Street rats are not always bad, Princesses are not always good and magic is not always the solution. This is not a tale of love; it is a tale of finding strength in unlikely places; it is a tale that teaches us you don’t need magic to have a happy ending.
OK so I am going to start off this review with a really pedantic comment and I know I am being petty and that this will almost definitely end in a rant but… he does find the lamp! Of course he does! Aladdin is the diamond in the rough! He is literally the only one who can find the lamp. If he didn’t find the lamp nothing would happen: Jasmine would probably grow old with her tiger; Jafar would carry on hypnotising the Sultan; Aladdin would probably wind up arrested and this would be the shortest twisted tale in history.
*Ahem*
So, Aladdin finds the lamp. Let’s move past it, because if you have read my other reviews, you will know I love Liz Braswell: her twisted tales always wind up being my favourites as she always brings something completely unexpected to the novels. In the circumstances, I can forgive the tagline.
This review of “A Whole New World” comes at a time where Aladdin is everywhere: the live action movie was released in the UK just over a month ago and, I for one, loved it! With this in mind, I just had to re-read this twisted tale and shout about the wholly different Agrabah that it presents to the reader.
Braswell’s Agrabah is a raw, dirty, troubled cousin of the Agrabah we all know and love. I struggle to comprehend exactly how the movies did it, because both showed starving children, but we found ourselves simultaneously accepting and glossing over the poverty of the street rats. We have no such option in “A Whole New World”.
From starving infants; old men shovelling camel dung for coins; to Aladdin’s own mother dying of a wasting disease: this novel takes no prisoners in the Quarter of the Street Rats. However, those in the Palace remain blind to the struggles of the poor, with the Sultan playing with his golden toys whilst some of his citizens have no food or clean water.
The plight of the Agrabah people creates an undercurrent of resentment that runs all the way through Aladdin and Jasmine’s story. It is also a clear indicator of the identity of this novel: Braswell has taken all the romanticism of the familiar story and buried it in her own cave of wonders, leaving behind a highly political but incredibly powerful story.
The twisted tale starts off on a similar vein to both movies, boy meets girl, boy rescues girl from hand severing businessman, boy winds up arrested and transported to a creepy cave where he finds an old lamp, boy’s monkey can’t keep his hands to himself and boy is left clinging on for his life at the entrance to said creepy cave. However, in this version, when Jafar steps on Aladdin’s fingers to prevent his escape, Abu doesn’t grab the lamp! How will Aladdin escape now?
As is to be expected from Braswell’s novels, the characters are phenomenal. Aladdin is the proud, eternal optimist that we recognise but with a strong ethical viewpoint that is introduced by the inclusion of his mother as a character.
Creating a new character, particularly Aladdin’s mother, could simply be a tactic to give some history to the charming thief. However, Braswell uses the matriarch to add depth to Aladdin: she tells him “don’t let how poor you are, decide who you are…you can choose to be something more”.
This is ultimately the lesson the genie would teach Aladdin if they were to meet and so I think it is very clever of Braswell to keep this element of Aladdin’s character. It allows us to witness Aladdin’s pride and strength through these instilled virtues: he has even lost friends over his views of when he considers it acceptable to be a thief.
Although I wouldn’t consider the genie a main character in this tale (he doesn’t get as much airtime as in the films): he remains a funny and flippant sidekick for the most part. However, in keeping with the tone of “A Whole New World”, he does use this humour to provoke our thoughts. The genie and Braswell divulge that there was once a whole race of djinn who have since died out. The genie has lost his home, his wife and his freedom and so, he rightly asks, who would stay sane under those conditions?
Jafar; Mr dark and twisty himself, is a whole other level of evil in this twisted tale. He does present some of the characteristics of the movie villain: power mad, desperate for everyone to love him and all that jazz; however, he also tortures the genie and plans to break the laws of magic in order to create an army of the dead. It’s all very game of thrones all of a sudden!
I know what you’re thinking: what about Jasmine? Surely, she isn’t all dark and twisty as well? The girl looks good in turquoise baggy trousers for goodness sakes!
Jasmine begins her journey as the typical naïve, sheltered princess she is always portrayed as: possessing no knowledge of the price of food or the struggles of her own people. However, Braswell manages to make even the live-action Jasmine appear over-dramatic and petty: she isn’t resisting marriage just because she doesn’t fancy random foreign prince number 3; she is resisting becoming a “baby making machine” and signing herself up to an early grave.
“A princess among men”, Jasmine and the reader soon realise that she has to step forward and become the hero of this tale. This is no small ask for someone who has never led an army or witnessed death before. Nonetheless, Jasmine is clearly up to the task: this is no weak princess trapped in an hourglass of sand, waiting to be rescued by a man. This is a Sultana!
The story of Aladdin typically conjures up images of love, magic carpets and romantic duets. Liz Braswell’s story of Agrabah does orbit around love, how could it not? However, “A Whole New World” explores the shades of grey in life: Street rats are not always bad, Princesses are not always good and magic is not always the solution. This is not a tale of love; it is a tale of finding strength in unlikely places; it is a tale that teaches us you don’t need magic to have a happy ending.
