Showing posts with label childhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label childhood. Show all posts

October 15, 2010

Catching up on a lost cinematic childhood - #2


Some months back, I shared with you the terrible secrets of my movie-starved childhood. It wasn't that I wasn't watching movies; I just somehow managed to miss all the culturally important ones. But since I belive that 70s-80s blockbusters are just as important to film fluency as some of their loftier brethren, I'm holding myself accountable and trying to set things right. In my last installment I shared my progress catching up with classics from Star Wars to Dumb and Dumber, and here's more that I've either seen since or forgotten about for the first round. Again, these are films that seemingly everyone of my generation saw as a child or young teen (except me!).

Beetlejuice (1988)
Earlier this year, there was a Tim Burton exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in New York that has since gone on tour. The exhibit featured drawings, designs, props, costumes, and any other film-related paraphernalia imaginable. Why do I mention this? Because sadly, I feel that Beetlejuice would have been more entertaining as an exhibit of this nature than as a film. The overall look of the thing is classic Burton and is a joy to revel in, but nothing seems to be gained from inserting people into the sets and costumes. I also found the character of Beetlejuice to be exceptionally grating. Sorry, Tim.


Big Trouble in Little China (1986)
This was my first John Carpenter movie, and I was pretty underwhelmed. Everyone has a different definition of good silly and bad silly, and I'm afraid that this was bad silly for me. The undeniable charisma of Kurt Russell is a strong point, but mostly it felt like an 80s arcade game with some arcane depictions of women and Asians. I didn't give up on Carpenter, however, and discovered that The Thing (1982) was much more on my wavelength.

Die Hard (1988)
And speaking of charisma, holy 80s Bruce Willis! For as epic and explodey as this gets, it effectively milks a really simple premise of one man against a handful of others. Many action films undercut their own impact by having a lot of characters, locations, and plot details, but less is definitely more here. Willis is at his peak, conveying not only gruff charm but the rare notion that the physical hell he goes through actually takes a toll on him (most action heroes perpetually seem like they've done nothing more than lift a gallon of milk). I was a bit underwhelmed by Hans Gruber, to be honest (maybe the notion of a sophisticated villain just isn't as novel to me?) but that might be partially because instead of experiencing the memorable debut of a new talent as 80s audiences did, it was more "why yes, that is noted thespian Alan Rickman."

Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985)

I ran hot and cold on this one. I think a lot of it depends on how on board you are with the Pee-Wee Herman persona, and while I could mostly dig it I think I was held back a critical 10% or so. That said, I did enjoy spending time in a completely uncensored Burton world that predates his seemingly interminable "kooky macabre" phase. I probably could have enjoyed it as a kid, but only if I had a special edition that edited out the Large Marge scene, thus preventing the need for years of therapy.

Rocky (1976)
I admit I approached this one with apprehension, because its reputation as a corny-but-classic underdog sports flick wasn't really doing anything for me. Why it has that reputation I have no idea, because this is first and foremost a romantic drama and a terrific one at that. It's just a superbly written, acted, and directed blue collar love story, with Sylvester Stallone acing the role of a talkative dork who is rather incidentally a boxer. It's telling that after the big fight, Rocky seems somewhat disinterested in the outcome and is focused solely on finding Adrian. Definitely deserves its classic status.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

A movie that combines film noir and cartoons? Where has this been all my life?! A combination that shouldn't work is a true delight, laden with cheeky references and wonderfully wacky characters of both the real and animated variety. Special effects that could probably be done pretty effortlessly today still hold up well despite how much harder it must have been to create them, and the animation and live-action meld seamlessly. Seeing it when I did was definitely for the better, though, since the villain (Christopher Lloyd) would have scared the crap out of me.


Return of the Jedi, the Indiana Jones films and the Bond films remain embarassingly unwatched by me, but I feel that I am slowly earning back my right to be an American child of the 80s. Have you seen any childhood staples for the first time as an adult? What did you think?
 

June 21, 2010

Movie Memories: The Little Mermaid



Writing of my deficient movie youth in the last post, it nudged me to finally start a new feature I had long been considering called Movie Memories. The idea is simple: recall notable movie-viewing experiences from my life. Unlike many of my other hastily aborted features, however, I think this one will stick better because I have 23 years of material to work with already. So let's begin at the beginning, with the first movie I ever saw in a theater: The Little Mermaid.

It's 1989 and I'm two and a half years old, still an only child. My dad is taking me to a movie theater, a big, dark, cavernous place, to see something called The Little Mermaid. We pass by the concession stand and my dad offers to buy me a treat. The world stops for a moment.

You see, my mom is a strict sugar Nazi, who fervently denies me access to sweets, except on the rarest of occasions. My dad, however, doesn't care. I consider my options carefully, but there is really no contest - I choose my favorite, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. This is far more exciting than the notion of seeing a moving picture.

We settle into our seats, and I stare up at the looming screen. I rarely ever consider this now, but especially before stadium seating became the norm, poor kids across the world must have been craning their necks at almost impossible angles to see the screen in spite of their stature. I can't bear the wait any longer and I devour the first of my two Reese's, cupping the other in my hand to save for later.

The lights dim, and what seems like a very long series of cartoons begins. I now realize two things: those were trailers for upcoming animated movies, and it wasn't long at all. It's pretty wild to think about how slowly time moved when you were a kid - everything that I can remember from before age five or so seems like a feverish dream. I recall it seemed like about 45 minutes of "cartoons," one of which was advertising an entry in the Land Before Time franchise.

Then the movie begins, quickly solidifying a love of the film that continues to this day (except that Ursula, both then and now, may be the most terrifying thing I've ever seen). After I feel that a considerable amount of time has passed (it probably hasn't), I decide that it is now appropriate to eat my other Reese's. But do you know what happens to chocolate when cradled in a warm palm? I sure didn't, and I look down to find sugary sludge where my treat once resided. I start crying. My dad saves the day, however, by ducking out of the theater to buy me a replacement. If my math is correct, then, I might have actually scored an extra Reese's in the process.

Thus begins a lifetime of watching a flickering screen in the dark with strangers. Only now I don't sit there clutching chocolate in my bare hands.

June 20, 2010

Catching up on a lost cinematic childhood


I will begin by saying that I was NOT raised Mormon, or any other religion that forbids its followers from viewing or otherwise experiencing certain media. What does that have to do with anything? Well, it might be your first assumption when I reveal the surprising list of films I did not see growing up.

If it was a classic loved by children and young adults from the 80s (or thereabouts), I almost certainly missed it. Back to the Future. The Star Wars trilogy. Ghostbusters. Honestly, I don't know what happened. Your parents are your first source of pop culture influence, and my parents couldn't care less about it. They never prevented me from seeing anything (within reason, of course), but they never encouraged me to watch anything either. (It was the same with music - I don't think I was even exposed to the Beatles until high school, and I had to seek them out.) The lone exceptions were the time that my mom held me hostage when I was home sick and made me watch The Sound of Music, and the fact that my dad often tried to convince me and my sister to watch violent action movies on TV with him. Not even good action movies, either - but drab, explodey ones with the likes of Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren (I seem to recall one where Lundgren freaks out anytime he sees anything white?). I didn't get great movie exposure from friends either. So suddenly I found myself as a college student who hadn't seem some of the most beloved films of my own generation.

I feel pretty good about my standing with the film history/film snob canon, but I'd be remiss to dismiss its popular cousin. So, under the guidance of my boyfriend (who had a normal childhood), and a contribution from a similarly-normal ex, I sought to rectify this situation. It's strange and a bit sad to experience this films solely as an adult, but frankly, I'm not sure how much I would have liked a lot of them when I was younger. The best jokes would have gone over my head, and anything remotely unnerving would have scarred me for life (I'm still a relative wimp, but I once ran away screaming from slightly ominous segment on "Sesame Street," to give you an idea). Plus, I'm free from the constraints of nostalgia, or even nostalgia's nameless relative wherein I didn't even particularly love something as a kid but I'm still unable to evaluate it objectively. (For me, that's The Wizard of Oz. I don't even know if I liked it, but it's just the goddamn Wizard of Oz!).

So here is my progress so far. I have viewed all of these films for the first time at age 20 or older.

Alien (1979)
Wow. Wow wow wow. Can you believe that this film is over 30 years old? I can't. The set and prop design and special effects haven't aged a day, and the cast maintains a pitch-perfect sense of tense restraint. The suspense is orchestrated beautifully, and I didn't see the twists coming at all (maybe I was just lucky enough to avoid hearing about them). Definitely something that darling little girls don't typically see, but all the boys did and I owed it to myself as a film fan. I'm not naturally predisposed to sci-fi/horror, but this one won me over hook, line, and sinker.

Aliens (1986)
So remember everything I liked about the original? Well, remove that, and you end up with Aliens. I've detailed my troubled relationship with James Cameron already, and this is no exception. I understand that it's an action movie instead of sci-fi or horror, but it wasn't really working for me on that level either. Sure, there are impressive moments, but I was bummed that Cameron traded the sterile, futuristic environment for something resembling a flashy 80s music video. A lot of the compositions felt frenzied and cluttered, and almost all the characters (Ripley excluded) were goofy 80s stereotypes. Ripley's ascension to heroine was of course fantastic, but we all agree that Newt is annoying and lame. I know she needs to be there for the maternal themes, but how awesome would it have been if Ripley just kept saving her lesser male comrades? Also, I felt an overwhelming sense that they were trying to disguise a lack of actual aliens. The "don't show the monster" approach can be effective in low-budget, atmospheric horror, but it just seems pathetic in an action blockbuster.

Back to the Future (1985)
Most of the time, the three-act structure seems like a drag - "oh, now it's time for the low point!", etc. But it was not originally intended to weigh films down, but to give them life, and sometimes there are films that execute it so perfectly that they freakin sparkle. BTTF is a well-oiled machine that glides along without so much as a hiccup. Everything works, be it Michael J. Fox's boyish charm, the quaint world of the 1950s, the lovably insane Doc Brown, the incalculable menace of Biff, or the thrill of a ride in a souped-up DeLorean. It's good clean fun that never takes itself too seriously. It's a shame I didn't see this as a kid, but as you can see, it's never too late!

A Christmas Story (1983)
My reason for not seeing this one as a kid is simple: it's about Christmas. Being raised Jewish, Christmas was just that stupid day that I never got to be a part of, so I didn't feel compelled to participate in any of its cinematic traditions (even though many are good films in their own right). But when I watched the movie a couple of years ago, I realized that it's something that even a surly Scientologist could enjoy. The depictions of a wacky family transcend all generations and religions. I might even go so far as to say that it's the perfect holiday movie - it has the same theme as all of them (family and loved ones are what matters most at Christmastime) but wrapped in a twisted, sweet-and-sour package that includes scary Santas, f-bombs, leg lamps, BB guns, and a Christmas dinner in a Chinese restaurant. The introspective voiceover also keeps the proceedings from getting too treacly. Pity I didn't catch any TV showings of it when I was little, but I have many Christmases to come.

Dumb and Dumber (1994)
As I wrote in a previous post about "dumb comedy", don't let the title here fool you - this is a smartly-executed flick. A testament to its comedy is the fact that the things I laughed at the most had much more to do with the actors' delivery than the actual lines. Some of the more scatological gags weren't really my scene, but Carrey and Daniels play off each other with such impeccable timing that I'm not really sure how you couldn't dig this one.

Ghostbusters (1984)
In a word: yay! I was lucky enough to see it in a theater, even, no doubt filled with people who loved it in their youth. I realized that I was primarily familiar with Bill Murray's "serious" work, so it was great to see him play freewheeling and silly while still maintaining a deadpan edge (the rest of the gang is great too, of course). I think a trap that many comedies run into (particularly in the 80s) is that they try either too little or too much to make you laugh. Too little when they expect you to find the most basic of premises and situations funny, and too much when they're really straining for yuks. Ghostbusters hits the sweet spot, though - a pleasant and zany ride with demented supernatural elements (giant marshmallow man?!).

Jurassic Park (1993)
Action or effects-driven movies can often be like softcore porn: you have to sit through the silly talky parts to get to the good stuff. In Jurassic Park, the dinosaur sequences, particularly the T-Rex chase in the rain, are stunning. But the characters and everything else fall flat. Am I asking too much when I want my popcorn movies to be consistently entertaining? I don't think so, because those movies do exist. I also have trouble with the notion that an insanely brilliant scientist would put GIANT AGGRESSIVE CARNIVOROUS BEASTS in his park, when a park full of herbivorous dinosaurs would earn him just as much money and acclaim.

Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The problem with some sci-fi/action films that are intended as franchises (or that just end up being one) is that the first one has to go through the motions of establishing the world and the character histories. Sometimes this can be fun ("I was bitten by a radioactive spider and now weird things are happening!"), but even at its best, it's typically more fun in the sequels when you can take everything you've established and just play. Thus, I found Empire to be much more enjoyable, because it could build on the somewhat dull foundations of the original. Han was more charming, Luke more heroic, Vader more villainous, the situations more dire, the Force stronger...you name it. The first one seemed to be more about "look at these crazy planets and creatures I made up!". The prevailing theory is just that Lucas is a weak director. Who knows. For me, Empire offered some genuine thrills, which I just found to be lacking in the first. I have yet to see Return of the Jedi - look for that in a future installment!

The Terminator (1984) and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
I have rarely felt James Cameron movies to be anything more than vehicles for technological innovation. If he was in charge of the special effects and left the writing and directing to someone else, I think the final product would be infinitely better. The Terminator films at least have an interesting premise that Cameron cooked up himself, but he struggles to carry it. Even if he did do it first, the fact that the world must be saved by a helpless-looking and unlikely candidate is unbearably cliched by now. The goofiness of the doctors and cops who don't believe Sarah Connor is over the top, Edward Furlong is annoying, some of the effects are distractingly bad (which would be fine if others weren't amazing - clearly there are capable people working on this, and it's the disparity that's the problem), and it's a little troubling to see Sarah fall for what might be nothing more than the most elaborate pick-up attempt of all time. The presence of Ahnuld makes for automatic camp, and I wish they had given in to that lighter tone more instead of making these films the deadly-serious affair that they are.  


That's it for now, but I still have to see Die Hard, the Indiana Jones films, Return of the Jedi and any or all Bond films, at least.

What childhood classics did you catch up on later? How did they stack up?