Beauty and the Beast x4

Beauty and the Beast is one of our favourite fairy tales (especially Jenni's) and we thought that the wintry settings of most of the known film versions would be fitting to end the year with. We know that this story has gotten quite a lot of flak in recent years, but we like to make our own assessments and have never been fans of moralizing critique. The original fairy tale's context was to reassure women that arranged marriage is actually fine. Hence "the beast has a kind heart underneath the monstrous look" and in the original story beast does not have a character arc, since he is kind despite his slight passive-aggressiveness. Belle is the one with the character arc in the original story and in older stories where women were the main characters, they often also were the ones whose story the fairy tale told. As we did with the Robin Hoods, this list also goes from worst to best (to us, of course).


La Belle et la Bête (2014)

Characters

Belle: We liked her for the first 2/3rds of the movie. She had attitude and personality but then her character did a 180 once the Beast tried to actually molest her. Her character mainly fails because this film tried to combine the Cocteau and Disney version and they DO NOT mesh at all. Also, the last third took away her character arc.
Beast: Honestly, the main reason this movie is in last place is because this is the only version where the Beast is a rapey murderer. Say what you will about the rest of the versions or the original fairy tale but at least Beast isn't a would-be rapist killer in them. This is the worst version of the Beast by a mile and a half. He is not kind and he doesn't even get a redeeming character arc.  So he stays the same bastard he was from the get go.
Minor characters: Belle's father is better than in the fairy tale and we liked him. The villain is pointless and useless and we wondered the whole time why is he there. Belle's sisters are barely there and instead they gave more time to the Beast's dead wife and even that didn't go anywhere.

Story

So, so convoluted. There was a possibility that it could've worked if they had simplified it and given more time to the characters. The idea that the Beast only demanded that the father come back and pay for his crime and never asked for a wife, was actually an improvement to the story. And they even gave a meaning for the roses, since they were the Beast's dead wife. But these are really the only things that we thought were improvements. Otherwise, this film and its characters suffer greatly from the fact that the filmmakers tried to merge two diametrically opposed versions of this story (ie. The Disney animation and the Cocteau film). This is the only version where one could possibly make a connection to the whole "Stockholm syndrome" theory. So, thank you film, for encouraging the internet commentators.

Misc./Technical aspects

This film looks AMAZING. We mean fucking gorgeous. The colours, the sets, the outfits, everything looks SO good. This is what the Disney remake should have looked like. The score as well manages to be better than the Disney remake's. Hell, even the Beast looks less fake than in the Disney live action. Truly, if it wasn't for the rapey Beast, we would actually like this more than the Disney remake.

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Characters

Belle: All of her personality has been erased. She is the unfortunate victim of what we like to call "shallow feminism", aka "corporate feminism". Much like Rey in Star Wars, she doesn't really have any faults and doesn't make mistakes and most importantly is barely given any leeway to show negative emotions. Which also gives her no character arc. The only thing that they could've improved from the animation was to give Belle a character arc but instead they even took away her utilitarian purpose in the remake. She's a blank slate and we don't think that any actor would've been able to improve this level of writing.
Beast: This Beast should really thank the French remake on its knees. Because otherwise he would be our most detested version of this character. He also stays largely the same unpleasant person he was in the beginning. There is no character arc. This version didn't seem to understand that the Beast had already changed in the animation when Belle came to the castle. And who wouldn't fall for a guy who after hearing your love for tragic romance basically goes "you ignorant peasant girl, I'LL show you better literature than that drivel". This Beast is a condescending jerk and also thinks far too highly of himself. No.
Minor characters: Since the writers took away Gaston's character arc he might as well be a minor character. Instead of having Beast's and Gaston's arcs intact, they took 'em away and gave character arcs to two minor characters, Le Fou and Maurice, which bring absolutely nothing to the story. Funnily enough, though the film focuses much more on the servants than in the animation they are far less interesting or fun than they were in the animation.

Story

There's a way better film critic than us who has done a deep analysis of this film, so we'd advise you to watch her criticism instead of reading our drivel. We pretty much 100% agree with her, we just don't hate this film, since we had such fun time watching it in the cinema. We'd say it's an enjoyable bad movie. One thing we have to say though that we absolutely did hate about this film was the horrible class reductionism and "upping the ante". Holy shit, even the French remake was more true to the French revolutionary and equality principles than this movie, since the prince gave up his crown and became a farmer in the end, for god's sake! And the Disney animation never ever blamed the fucking servants for the deeds of their master. That kind of victim-blaming is class reductionist as fuck. Also, this movie lets both the Beast and the villagers off the hook, since the Beast doesn't really learn anything and the villagers were just enchanted. And was the destruction of the castle and the servants dying really necessary for the story, since it was supposed to be about the two main characters which the movie ultimately didn't actually focus on? Taking away the parallel character arcs of Beast and Gaston made the story completely hollow so they had to stuff it with pointless shit that didn't lead anywhere. Belle doesn't save the Beast on her own once,  Gaston dies not because of his own greed and jealousy but because the castle kills him and Beast doesn't change drastically. And let's not forget the crowning achievement of this movie - Belle's hairpin of empowerment. It's not Belle who gets out of the predicament she and her dad are, but she sure gave him the hairpin that does the trick.  Also, this movie is at least 10 - 15 minutes too long.

Misc/Technical elements

Like every movie nowadays it looks dark and colourless. So many frames are ridiculously cluttered and aren't given space to breathe. Also, we greatly dislike the overuse of CGI which gives the film a mechanical and cold look. The music is barely there as well and the new songs are entirely forgettable. The autotune is pretty cringey and the only people who sound good in the movie are Luke Evans and Josh Gad (who were our favourite part of the film, even if Evans' character wasn't Gaston). All in all, a completely superfluous version that was never needed in the first place.

La Belle et la Bête (1946)

Characters

Belle: The only Belle with a character arc. Which is what she had in the original story - she has to see beyond Beast's hideous form to his kind heart. She's a pretty great character and her character design is sublime. She is humble and kind like in the original story but also quite blunt and pays too much attention to people's outward appearance.
Beast: He is almost exactly like he is in the fairy tale. Kind and long-suffering, but a tad passive aggressive (which you can't get rid of if you want to make a faithful version of the story). He also tries to reign in his beastly nature and live more like a human being. 
Minor characters: Belle's father is again improved from the fairy tale and her sisters are deliciously bitchy and vain. 

Story

Completely metaphorical storytelling. The surreal images that are given and Belle's entrance to the Beast's castle can be interpreted as a metaphor for the sexual awakening of a young woman. Avenant, Belle's rival suitor, being the Beast is one of the strongest aspects of this reading. The music, the sets and images all support a more metaphorical interpretation. The humble Belle asking only for a rose is in contrast to her sisters asking expensive jewels and clothing. The dream sequences and the mystical air in the Beast's castle add to the surreal feeling of the film. If one watches this movie as a straightforward story with a simple lesson one will lose a lot of meaning and nuance in the film.

Misc./Technical aspects

Just like the French remake, the film looks gorgeous. The shadows and shades of black and white are especially something that modern films can't seem to be able to replicate. Beautiful sets, outfits and convincing make-up that has kept the focus on the Beast's eyes (the window to his human soul) look particularly great.

Beauty and the Beast (1991) 

Characters

Belle: Although she is not the best Belle, she is our favourite. She's sarcastic, a little rude and a contrarian. And unlike the remake, while here she doesn't have a character arc, she does have a utilitarian purpose not only saving her dad but the Beast as well (at least twice, three times if you count the confession). And this Belle at the very least shows some negative emotions like grief, anger and sadness and is allowed to cry over losing her father and freedom. These are some basic human emotions that make characters way more relatable, at least for us.
Beast: This is the best Beast and by far our favourite. His arc is basically Mr. Darcy's, except  for the fact that the Beast loathes himself and that makes him act incredibly aggressive and assholish. But the drastic change in his behaviour after the 1/3rd of the movie is pretty similar to Mr.Darcy's. The arc is given to the Beast in this movie and it is a great redemption arc of regaining one's humanity. 
Gaston: One of the best villains not just in Disney canon but overall. The parallel to the Beast and his character arc is gradually descending into a possessive murderer. Where the Beast lets Belle go and refuses to kill Gaston, Gaston becomes more and more possessive of Belle and is ready to murder somebody to own her. Gaston is self-obsessed, vain and greedy and constantly tries to invade Belle's personal space. They've also cleverly made him into a more handsome fellow so one might not instantly think he is a villain.
Minor characters: Maurice is endearing and we love all the servants - they are fun and heartfelt.

Story

Simple yet there's more than meets the eye. The parallel character arcs for Beast and Gaston work great and they've actually tried to built a relationship between Belle and the Beast. Belle is given some agency since she gives her word to the Beast to live in the castle and only breaks it when he really scares her. Clearly her promise means something to her and not to anybody else. Belle's actions and decisions are meaningful and make a difference in the story. The villagers turning into a mob is based on real psychological reality, which we find hilarious that an animated kids film can be more realistic to real life than the actual movie with live actors. The story is short, yes, but everything in it is utilised to its absolute maximum. Also, why we always thought the servants were changed into objects was because the prince saw them as such and they were also changed as a punishment for the Beast, so that he would blame himself and that it would all be his fault. It's called metaphorical storytelling and unfortunately is largely lost in modern filmmaking. The Disney version is not the most faithful adaptation of this story, but it is definitely the one we love the most.

Misc./Technical aspects

Everything's perfect. The music, the colours, the designs, we love everything and it all looks so wonderful. We especially appreciate that the focus on the Beast's eyes (again, window to his humanity) was taken from the Cocteau version - it really makes him a distinct character that can speak without saying a word. Also the fact that only Belle and the Beast wore blue in the movie  was a nice bit of colour symbolism. Both of these elements (the eyes and colour) were sorely missing in the remake and made it a duller movie visually as well. This is the best thing Disney has ever done and we doubt they can ever do better.   
       

    

      
       

      

Joker vs Ad Astra

Both of these films attempt to reckon with a major theme that is exceedingly relevant in our disconnected world. The other one, for us, succeeds, the other falls short. We saw these movies few weeks apart and thought they would make a pretty natural comparison (much like one of our previous posts, Arrival and Passengers). We're gonna change the script a bit here, because how these movies are and are made. We decided to compare the films in three areas - direction, performance and story. Disclaimer: We love James Gray, think he is one of the best directors in modern Hollywood and we've been waiting for Ad Astra for like, 3 years. We've tried our hardest to be not-so-obviously biased.


Joker

Direction: Discount Scorsese. The greasy look of Gotham is directly comparable to 70's New York. We don't think they even tried to hide this fact. We really liked the colours and character designs but the overall visual look of the film leaves something to be desired. There are certain moments where we feel the direction kinda works, like when Arthur is at his neigbour's flat and realizes he has imagined their whole relationship or when he is dancing alone in the deserted bathroom. Otherwise, though, this film leaves all the work to the actor. The film suffers from the modern movie syndrome of stating the obvious (note: stating, not showing) and a lot of the lines could fit into a superhero film. Which this movie is (more about that in the story part). It does not bode well when the actor seems to know more about film-making than the director of the film (we've seen the interviews, that's clearly the case here).  This is not a badly directed film by any means, but it is quite un-noteworthy, like most movies nowadays.
Performance: Phoenix single-handedly holds this movie together. His performance deserves better than this film. The movie and the actor are at odds with each other. Phoenix overshadows everything else in this film. That should not happen if one wants to make a truly great film.

Story: Joker was clearly to liberal movie critics what Mad Max: Fury Road was to meninists. They clutched their pearls quite effectively, some without even seeing this movie and basing all their moral panic on trailers. We saw this as your basic superhero movie, just about the villain this time. It does try to peek into an alienated mind and alienation from society in general but we feel that's a bit undone when it turns into an anti-hero origin story in the end. We appreciate the depiction of billionaire Thomas Wayne as completely removed from reality, but ultimately the disdain the film has for billionaires is undermined by the sympathetic story of the poor little billionaire boy Brucie whose parents are killed because of the villain. That said, we do not understand the outrage about this movie. We wouldn't be surprised if the whole "generating outrage" turned out to be a marketing ploy. All in all, the story is pretty nihilistic and doesn't really stand for anything - which one could argue, is exactly the kind of film that fits a Joker type character. At least Joker admitted that we live in a society. 

Ad Astra

Direction: Unsurprisingly, we loved it. The references it gave to other science-fiction films while retaining its own distinct visual look is something we've always appreciated in this director. The colours were amazing, set designs, lighting, sound design, etc. James Gray is a fucking master of show, don't tell. The only quibble we really have with the direction is the music, which directly ties into the visuals. You had Max Richter as your composer (mostly) and your score ends up being 90 % purely sounds. There are no themes or even A theme in this movie and that's something we really miss in modern films. And James Gray has used music before in his films, so this isn't about his lack of understanding concerning film music. We think it was a conscious choice of not having music, but we believe the film would have greatly benefited from some Richter vibes. This film isn't Silence, it needed a score. Generally, we are not fond of narration on film, but much like in Fight Club, the movie presents an unreliable narrator, which we do like, since that often means leaving things to the viewer's interpretation. We could gush about James Gray endlessly but let's try to keep it brief. The film was well worth the wait.
Performance: It has been a while since we've seen Brad Pitt do some serious dramatic acting in a lead role capacity. We actually forgot that he's more than capable. Pitt, unlike Phoenix, did not have to do the work of the director. The performance is part of the film, not above it. Pitt's and Jones' performances complement each other perfectly.

Story: The movie handles the relationship between father and son, like many other Gray's films. The theme of connection actually pays off at the end of the film, when the father is revealed to be a much more tragic and isolated character and the protagonist realizing that he does not want to be like his father. This is actually happier than most Gray's films. The story doesn't have women as characters because the story is only about the father and son. Historically, that is a problem, but picking out a film that's specifically intent on exploring masculinity and sometimes even deconstructing it (which all Gray's films do) feels a tad disingenuous and criticism made in bad faith. Also, the visuals in this movie make the women people who live outside of the main character's world, not extensions of the man. We absolutely loved the ending, where the film shows its true humanist colours - empathy, understanding and mercy are the way to connection. The loss of someone you cared about gives the movie a pinch of melancholy that stays with you even after the film is over.               

Costumes 'n all

Qualifications: No biographies, not based on/inspired by real events,  has to be happening before 1945 and by pure coincidence all the entries use pre-existing material. We have already expressed our displeasure about relegating period dramas (especially Austen) to the "chick flick" genre. Period dramas often have more women and female leads thus they offer female perspectives on different matters. In our opinion, this is the reason they are frequently downgraded in comparison to other more male centred dramas.

1. Much Ado About Nothing. Dear God, this movie is amazing. By far, our favourite Shakespeare. Emma Thompson was born to play Beatrice. It's the original romantic comedy that everyone else has since attempted to duplicate. Who knew that Shakespeare was capable of writing something proto-feminist? We've even grown to love the only thing that is amiss in this film, namely Keanu Reeves' performance.

2. A Room with a View. Obviously the '85 version. This is a near perfect adaptation from the book. The sets, the music, the cinematography, the locations, etc. It's all perfect. 

3. East of Eden. The only entry where the lead or co-lead isn't a woman. But goddamn it's really great and the female characters are not adjacent to the men and are presented with resentment towards the patriarchy, which of course make us relate to them. There's some really good shit about religion and family here. We recommend this to everyone.

3.  Far from the Madding Crowd. The more we watch this film, the more we love it. Once again, a superb adaptation of a wonderful book. What surprised us the most was that this came out in 2015 and wasn't an attempt to pander to the zeitgeist but simply trying to make a decent version of the story. Also, we have to admire that the creators had the guts to keep it a romance in this anti-romance age of film.

5. Sense & Sensibility. Duh! It is rather shocking to us that Austen isn't higher on the list, but alas they have not made a perfect film version of any of Austen's books and this has  come the closest and most likely will remain as such. The book is very hefty so of course you couldn't manage to include everything necessary like the miniseries did. Plus Hugh Grant as Edward... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. But this is incredibly well done and has THE Willoughby. In addition it has the best period drama film soundtrack. 

6. The Painted Veil. One of the few instances where the adaptation surpasses the original material for us. This film looks absolutely gorgeous. So much so, that one is able to let Edward Norton's questionable accent slide. And we like the characters.

7. The Secret Garden. One of our all-time childhood favourites. We dare you not to be happy after watching this film. These are some of the most authentic child characters created for screen.

8. Emma. It's light, it's funny, it's thoroughly enjoyable. Once again, there's a later miniseries that expanded really well on the original material. However, for a movie this one's not too shabby! Trust us, they've done much worse. 

9. Romeo & Juliet. The '60s one. This is the only version we have seen where the two leads knew what they were saying, and that makes a world of difference. We were actually quite astonished to notice that we like a Shakespearean drama/tragedy. In all the other versions we've seen, their love is presented as a tragedy because they are so young and amidst circumstances beyond their control and all that combined leads to their demise. This one is the only film adaptation we've seen where the parents, the only adults involved, are responsible for creating those unhappy circumstances. That gives us the complexity that we've always longed for in this story. Instead of victim-blaming the children the onus is on the adults and their petty feuds.

10. Love & Friendship. This is a great adaptation of Austen's work. It's almost as if she had written it herself. The quick-witted dialogue, the sardonic humour and salient commentary about the human and social conditions. Now this is how one panders to the zeitgeist.

 

Superheroes: deep or dumb?

Superheroes are something that we have been interested in writing about for quite a long time. And especially now that it seems that cinemas have really nothing much else to offer. We have already pointed out (in our Wonder Woman vs Spiderman review) that whenever we see anything superhero, we compare them to this somewhat obscure 90's anime Trigun. Because they share surprising similarities both structurally and thematically. The protagonist possesses superhuman abilities resulting from a genetic mutation, rigorous training, technological advances or simply not being human. They have outfits that signify something important and they stand behind some kind of ideology. They all attempt to depict the consequences when the protagonists use their powers to protect others/save humanity. In our heads, Trigun is what all of the superhero genre aspire to be, even though we're sure most of the creators of superheroes have never even heard of it. Now, to be clear, we do not think superhero movies are the worst thing in entertainment and they're fun to go watch. But when they are nearly the only product on offer in cinema and they do not deliver the way they could, we do tend to get a little frustrated. We believe there is value in analyzing pop culture and we don't really get the argument that we shouldn't hold popular movies to a high standard (and this includes B-movies as well). Most people reading this are familiar with the superhero genre and have seen at least some of the recent movies/tv-shows. But we'd estimate that not that many know Trigun. It is our favourite show not including miniseries (otherwise it'd be a tie). In order for us to contrast properly, we will have to spoil quite a bit of the show, so we would urge you to watch it (and please, for the love of god, watch the Japanese dub). If you haven't seen it and don't want spoilers, go watch it now (it's only 26 episodes, each lasting less than 30 minutes) or skip the next segment. We might cut corners when summarizing and you may not even agree with our assessment of the series, since in first viewing it feels like it takes 12 episodes for the idea to even start. In other words, this show requires patience and capacity for subtlety. The beginning especially can be quite off-putting if you're not used to anime humour and the show purposely makes you think that the main character is nothing but a goofy idiot and an outrageous pervert.

Brief summary of Trigun - Basically it is about two humanoid brothers with opposing ideologies. The main character, Vash, is a pacifist who has vowed never to kill anyone under any circumstances and avoids violent confrontation by any means. His brother, Knives, is continually trying to break Vash's conviction since Knives thinks humans are nothing but parasites and wants them all dead. There's also a priest, Wolfwood, who becomes Vash's best friend but also believes that killing is necessary to protect others. The show is kind of this constant struggle between the two ideologies - whether killing can ever be justified or not. Amazingly both of the female characters are adults and never sexualized (if you've seen anime at all, that is indeed a fucking miracle) and the women (Meryl and Milly) are also part of the dilemma of the show's ideologies and have to come to terms with and determine what they actually believe. Meryl especially has a great character arc. The "past woman" refreshingly isn't a dead lover but a mother figure (Rem) for both brothers and she taught them everything Vash believes in. The last really important character is Legato, Knives' nihilistic #1 henchman and the series culmination is Legato forcing Vash to kill him. The show's last episodes are Vash's struggle to face the ramifications of him betraying his values and realizing that he wants to save his brother instead of having to kill him. The show ends with Vash throwing away his gun and abandoning violence altogether. 

As we wrote earlier, Western superhero entertainment shares similarities and differences with Trigun, so we have divided this entry in two: structure and themes. We won't compare the source materials (manga and comics) since we aren't really interested in them and we wanted to stick with moving pictures. So, let's start with structure. Characters are an important part of a story's structure, especially for us who are very character focused. Female characters and villains have in recent years gotten the short end of the stick in many superhero films. That really should be a cause for concern, since women should be actual characters and afforded complexity just as much as male characters. Women in superhero movies mostly still serve as the love interest without a motivation of their own or if they happen to be main characters they are randomly overpowered (like Captain Marvel, who is basically the female equivalent of Superman), die (like Gamora or Black Widow) and have no character arc of their own (like Wonder Woman). And don't get us started on the sexy miniskirts/bloomers and leather outfits that women wear in these movies. You do not really ever get to see things from these female characters' perspective. That is another weird thing about Trigun - though the series is male centric, it devotes quite a lot of time to the female characters' inner thoughts and feelings. And the women, again, surprisingly, get character arcs in this male centric show. The Marvel TV-shows, to their credit, have managed to handle some of their female characters better than their movies. 

Same goes for the villains in these films - they are completely disposable and interchangeable nor do they really challenge the heroes in any meaningful way. The villains are there to be disposed of without any time devoted to them or making them interesting or intimidating. The villains are there purely as a physical deterrence. Now, some might say that Nolan's Batman trilogy does not do this and that his villains have some ideological purpose - that may be true, but Batman, the character Nolan has created, is not very consistent and that reflects poorly on his villains. This makes the villains ultimately just physical opposition and not moral challengers. Then again, we have never thought of Nolan to be particularly good at depicting any kind of internal moral struggles. This is why, to this day, our favourite superhero movie is Batman Returns (which we realize is no one's favourite). The anti-hero actually challenges the main character and he has to question his own identity and conviction, though even in Batman Returns, he wants to save the anti-hero because he loves her. In Trigun, Legato's will is to die by Vash's hand and it is his only goal. And Legato is an enemy that Vash feels nothing but hatred and resentment for, yet he still does not want to kill him. Knives' endgame is to get Vash on his side or make Vash lose his conviction and suffer for all time. These villains have an actual moral purpose in the story instead of just serving as fodder to the hero. Again, some of the Marvel shows have done a better job with their villains (especially Kilgrave, who is by far the most interesting character to come out of anything Marvel and Daredevil's second season with the Punisher actually challenging the main character's beliefs). High stakes are something we have come to detest in a lot of superhero films - either a whole country, the world, or hell, the fucking universe is in danger of imminent destruction. That, for us, often takes the focus away from characters and shifts it to the plot. Trigun, although it has all that threat of extinction looming in the horizon, wisely focuses on the intimate struggle of the characters and so the concept and characters always stay in sync.    

     

One thing that is for us discernibly better in Trigun than in most superhero movies is how they have succeeded in keeping their story and characters cohesive. Marvel in particular have prided themselves with "universe building" but when these movies are taken apart and analyzed more closely, we often notice that there isn't much internal logic even when they're telling the story of the same character. There are three things that we see especially Marvel falling short of (but other superhero movies to a lesser extent, too). First is recycling character arcs and often for the same character (we're looking at you, Iron Man 2). Second, characters changing drastically without explanation between one movie and the next (see Spiderman especially in Avengers: Endgame - suddenly he has no qualms about killing and it's treated as a joke). Third, character arcs are not often fully realized or left to halfway (far too many examples but first in mind for us would be the Black Panther with both the villain and the hero). But we guess that is the price you pay, when you have different directors and writers for most movies in your franchise and whether the movie will have a sequel depends on how much money it makes. Since Trigun was planned to only have 26 episodes, everything in it builds up to the last few episodes and pretty much all four characters have some kind of development. The characters stay consistent throughout the series and changes in them happen gradually and through a natural process of something drastic happening that greatly affects their lives, leaves a lasting effect and makes them re-evaluate their beliefs.   

    

In superhero films, no matter what you pick, they will never stray too far away from accepted masculine behaviour in their superheroing. They will win by using violence and maybe refrain from violence ONLY if the villain is their family member or a close friend. Even Daredevil, who is the most consistent with the not-killing, is a very violent character and violence is part of his life, which the show, to its credit, acknowledges. So, looking at Trigun, we're frankly amazed that a male character like Vash ever saw the light of day really anywhere. There will never come a day that you would see a Western superhero act the same way Vash does to avoid killing or even using violence. Vash will utterly humiliate himself to save anybody's life (and yes, that includes his enemies), even to the point of stripping naked and groveling on the ground. He will beg for the life of a fucking rapist and a murderer and in the process lets the victim's father beat the shit out of him. And he knows neither of these men. Now, if he wanted, he could pretty much decimate all of the people in his way. But he doesn't. Instead, he relies much more into actually being a ridiculous idiot so that people will leave him alone and thus won't get hurt, instead of the usual one-liners that superheroes mete out while kicking ass. It takes at least five episodes before we even see him use a gun for the first time. There is no way that Western superheroes would ever stoop so low and engage in similar degrading behaviour that Vash does because let's face it, it would utterly destroy any masculine image they have cultivated. Your hero groveling on the ground naked to save other people probably wouldn't sell all that well, now would it? But we absolutely love it, because it diverges so greatly from the ultra-masculine superhero behaviour and becomes more of a universal humanist principle that every life, good or bad, has value. 

Western superheroes are rarely also made helpless and ultimately they will be victorious. Even if they lose a few people on the way to that victory, those victims will either be used as a plot device for an argument between superheroes and then completely discarded for the rest of the movie (like in Captain America: Civil War) or then, if a hero dies, they're glorified for that one movie that comes after (like in Spiderman: Far from Home). Though Vash is superhuman, he cannot save everyone, and being the kind of character he is, every single death is a devastating loss to him that will haunt him forever. He is not the randomly overpowered Superman who can just save everyone but then in the end his girlfriend is more important to save than anyone else. Vash doesn't think in those terms - if he has failed to save one life, he has failed to save everyone. It is no wonder though, that in Western superhero films ordinary victims are used as faceless props and heroes hailed as individual saviours of society. The US, where all these characters are created, is after all a highly individualized country, with little talk of communal tradition (which they do have), so it's no surprise that their heroes also stand alone, separate and distant from the people they protect and people they care about. This separation and in some cases, concealment of their identity, is by choice - a duty that these heroes have taken upon themselves. Again, Vash could not be more different. The power he has is useless to him and instead of becoming this shining beacon of righteousness or the lone sheriff keeping the town safe, he wants to be part of humanity. He does not want to set himself apart, he is not special or amazing in his own mind, nor is saving people any kind of duty to him. He wants to live as a human being among other humans, in a world where humans can live and work together in peace and where violence is never necessary. Incredibly naive, we know, but we find it a much more compelling vision than the often authoritarian ideas that many Western superhero movies offer. The beauty of the show is as well, though, that it actually challenges this naive belief of the main character and makes the viewer also question their views.      

Trigun has this idea of not only just not killing anyone, but also wanting to save everyone so that not a single person will lose their lives. It is about stopping people from dying and getting killed. This is not a theme in superhero movies or even their shows, really. You might have heroes who won't kill, but since the movies don't focus on that aspect, it might as well be an afterthought. In Batman's case, the Burton's Batman movies at least make pretty clear that this guy is a fucked up individual haunted by his parents' death and he's pretty much walking on the edge unlike the Nolan films, where they have clearly tried to build some kind of hero mythos for Batman. He won't kill, sure, but he will totally let people die. Trigun does not only focus on the main character's pledge not to kill, which is a pacifist principle, but the show also goes further by asking is it possible to save others without violence in a violent and dystopian world, even if you do not kill anyone. This is something that many pacifists, including us, have to ask ourselves. And since bad guys are pretty much dehumanized most of the time in superhero films, their deaths are also completely inconsequential. In Trigun, it makes no difference to Vash whether it's an enemy, a friend or a complete stranger, he will want to save their lives. It could be an innocent baby or fucking Hitler, and he would do everything he can to save both their lives. Hell, his opponents do not even have to be human and he would still refuse to harm them. Now, whether he is right or not is beside the point and is up for the viewer to decide. The show makes no judgement on Vash's beliefs but neither does it make a case that he's right. Another novelty is that the show has an open ending, so whether Knives can be turned from his hatred of humans and whether Vash abandoning violence was the right choice, is left for the viewer to interpret. Imagine that, something is actually left for the viewer's imagination instead of Nolanizing it and explaining everything.  

All in all, the show is wonderfully humanist in its principles, and through its main character's pacifist beliefs dehumanizes absolutely nobody, no matter how insignificant they are to the story or how grotesquely monstrous they can be. So, when a life is taken in the show, it makes a bigger impact also on the viewer, since the main character cares way too much about everything living. And that is simply something you do not see in the modern offerings of the superhero genre. There is no time when a Western superhero has had to betray the deepest of their moral core and what they thought defined them as a person. The Western Superheroes aren't ever really truly challenged - they are presented with these challenges that they ultimately solve without profound realization or change. And that, for us, we are sorry to say, squander these movies' potential and makes a lot of them quite boring and repetitive. When diversity of ideas is missing from your supposedly "diverse" set of superheroes, it is kinda pointless for us to pretend that your movies are saying anything deep. Trigun, for us, is proof that superhero type - entertainment can be both highly entertaining as well as deeply thought-provoking.  

Ditzy and fun

These are our favourite airheads. People who are a bit shallow and maybe a little self-centred but without any malice. You'll notice that most are women because there's little to no representation of shallow men (unless they're villains).

1. Susan from Bringing up Baby. Not only is she our favourite airhead, but she's our favourite character from any comedy. We wish she was real so that she could be our friend.

2. Hauru from Howl's Moving Castle. He has to be #2 because he's probably the only one here with a substantive character arc. He starts out as a coward who only cares for outer appearances. Not to mention he's a huge drama queen.

3. Maggie from Extras. She's most likely the kindest and most level-headed of this bunch. However, she is still occasionally quite superficial. 

4. Cher from Clueless. Obviously. She's a rich teenager from L.A. Duh!

 

5. David from Sabrina. He's as frivolous as they can get. And as the character himself said, he's not too bright.

6. Lorraine from Back to the Future. Perhaps we ought not to like this character as much as we do... We can't help it though. She's too enjoyably ditzy. 

7. Ariel from The Little Mermaid. We know that a lot of people have problems with her and this movie, but we can't hate her. Ariel's type of people make the best kind of friends.

8. Tracy from Hairspray. "I watch The Corny Collins show and do absolutely nothing else." Pretty much sums her up.

9. Harriet from Emma. She's so indecisive and easily led it's almost unbelievable. She's a kind person, though.

10. Flora from Little Dorrit. She's mainly the comic relief but she's got a lot of heart too.

11. Prince Edward from Enchanted. He's our favourite part of the entire film. The gif we've chosen really sums it all up nicely.

 

Robin Hood x5

As a benchmark for our blog's five-year anniversary, we decided to introduce a new concept, in which we will compare numerous film versions with the same story. We limited our scope to classical re-tellings of a specific story; meaning that the expectation would be for them to be somewhat faithful to the original story. Hence, we decided against including Men in Tights here, as it is a satire. However, it came as a shock to us that the satire is still a better version of Robin Hood than two of the most recent versions. So, why Robin Hood, you might ask? First of all, this is one of our favourite folktales (and Jonna's absolute favourite) and admittedly the story hits home for us ideologically, although ideology itself rarely makes a story good or interesting for us. We have to say that there is something about a class traitor stealing from his "own kind" to give to the poor that really resonates with us. (In the most famous versions he was a noble, and we know that in the earliest versions Robin Hood was a commoner, but as a child that was never the version you were told.) We'll discuss why we love the original story more in depth when we talk about the different versions. We're going from worst to best, and obviously it is our personal preferences that determine the outcome.


Robin Hood (2010)

Characters

Robin: By a mile and a half, the most god-awful Robin we've witnessed on screen. Even if one was to disregard Crowe's complete miscasting, this character would be atrocious. He's boring as hell to watch because you're never given any tangible motives for his actions. In order to subvert the known story, they have managed to create an unrecognisable Robin Hood. We think the film-makers didn't realise that if they subvert his character, all of his original motives will disappear and they would have needed to replace them with just anything else. Alas, they did not, and for the viewer it's confusing to follow when your main character is running around like a headless chicken.    
Marian: As we have stated before, this Marian belongs to "the strong independent woman" cliché club. It's the classic "I can take care of myself", but in the end it's all "ooooh, save me!" And they have the misconception that making a female character take part in fighting somehow magically gives them personality. Physical power has never made any character, be they male or female, interesting. 
Merry Men: They ain't merry and are barely in the movie.
Villains: Waste of Oscar Isaac as Prince John. During the film, he's not even a villain and the Sheriff of Nottingham is like an afterthought. The real villains of the film are the French, a foreign enemy. This is what pisses us off the most and goes against every other version of Robin Hood in existence. Robin Hood has always been a story about domestic issues. Even when the Crusades were put in, they only served as a backdrop for domestic usurpers to seize power. 

Story

Convoluted as fuck. We have now seen it twice (the last time was literally last week), and we could not tell you what was happening. We might be able to tell you 'the what' but not 'the why'. Because we're convinced that there is no 'why', or at least a consciously made 'why', we hope. Jonna watched a few interviews where the film-makers talked about their desire to subvert everything about the original folklore (and they clearly only know the Errol Flynn one). But by subverting everything and not replacing it with something else that they have purposefully designed instead, the ideology has turned into something truly disgusting. Instead of criticising the rich and greedy assholes who are prospering because they are financially oppressing the peasants, the moral of the story has morphed into "look, our oppressors will unite even with us peasants to fight against our common enemy: the foreigners." Any class consciousness has been erased. We're generally not concerned whether a movie aligns with our ideologies or morals (after all, we like plenty of Clint Eastwood's films), but when a movie's characters are this bad (and characters are always the reason we like something) and the ideology is this repulsive, there's really no saving it from our disdain. A word on the so called love story - ugh! It made us feel second-hand embarrassment to hear supposedly mature adults delivering lines that made them sound like they were in a Twilight - novel. 

Misc./Technical aspects

It's Ridley Scott, so editing and other technical aspects are competent and might function very well, if the story and characters were any good. Like in most modern blockbusters, the colours are muted and the music sucks. The runtime is absurdly long. Clearly, Scott wanted to make another Gladiator. 


Robin Hood (2018)

Characters

Robin: Way to ruin perfect casting, people. We guess Aladdin (the remake) took advice from this one, with the "no character introductions for the main two characters". We never get to know who this guy is. Granted, they at least gave him some kind of a motive. It sucks, 'cause it's basically "gotta get my girl back", but it's a motive. He's a bland character that you'll forget immediately once the movie's over, and the same goes for the rest.
Marian: Just read above. She is assigned one motive but unfortunately it does nothing to give her personality. She's simply a blank slate. 
Merry Men: At least Little John has some semblance of a backstory or something. The rest of them...utterly forgettable. What a waste of Tim Minchin.
Villains: How many times does Ben Mendelsohn have to play the villain?!?!? He's basically just recycling his role from Rogue One. Our main problem with any of the characters is excruciatingly bad writing. 

Story

What the movie wants to be is a Marvel/superhero - film. The "modernising" made it painfully obvious that the studio wanted a superhero franchise, not a stand-alone great movie. The sad thing is that the original story would work seamlessly in a modern context. Billionaires and megacorporations reaping benefits by economically oppressing the already impoverished? Sign us up for that movie! There's no story because they wanted to mesh all the existing movie versions into one. At least the enemy's domestic in this one, so it's not a hot mess like Scott's Hood. The love story stinks, it's just not as soul-crushingly embarrassing like the previous one, but it's still as lifeless as a corpse that's been floating in the Atlantic for two years.   

Misc./Technical aspects

There's one semi-decent action scene. The rest of the time you just wish it was already over. Fortunately the runtime isn't as painfully long as the 2010's one. It has the same dull colour scheme and wannabe Hans Zimmer music, though. We'd pick this one over Scott's version, and this is complete shit. And we would not recommend this to anyone. That's how bad the previous one is.


Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Characters

Robin: Kevin Costner was even more miscast than Russell Crowe. Literally any actor of any nationality would have worked better. The character's better written than Crowe's, but that's about it. 
Marian: She's actually okay. At least she attempts an English accent. She has some personality, even though we still sneer at the whole "damsel in distress" - ending. Love her character design.
Merry Men: Morgan Freeman works always. The rest of them are there as well at least and have some connection to the main character and even Christian Slater is more believable than Kevin Costner.
Villains: Alan Rickman is 100% the best thing about this movie.

Story

The story's surprisingly not half-bad. It has some internal logic, they've bothered to create a backstory, give discernible character arcs and create actual relationships. Even Costner's miscasting couldn't destroy all of that. You still don't see Robin really defy the authorities because the film focuses so much on the action. The magic shit definitely doesn't belong in Robin Hood (it's not King Arthur) and sticks out like a sore thumb, but we prefer the theatrical cut anyway, where they had deleted most of the magic stuff. There's not much else to say - if it wasn't for Costner, this would be a guilty pleasure for us.

Misc./Technical aspects

Most of the action sequences are super entertaining. Music is a guilty pleasure of ours, it has a clear colour palette, even though most people are dressed in rags (can't say that about the previous ones). We'd pick this one over them any day. And when Prince of Thieves does something better than your movie, you know you're in deep shit.


Robin Hood (1973)

Characters

Robin: The only English (voice) actor in these five films. And he's fucking great. The first and only crush Jonna has ever had. He's cheeky but sincere. 
Marian: She's much more of a minor character here and she's maybe less active. But we still like her. She has her moments and the fact that she keeps Robin's wanted poster on her wardrobe's door is pretty funny.
Merry Men: It's more of a bromance between Robin and Little John, since the others are in much more minor roles. The bromance is awesomely fun, though.
Villains: Prince John's the main attraction, and dear god, does he play his part to perfection. There hasn't been a more enjoyable whiner in all of Disney's history. Hiss and the Sheriff work as great henchmen.  

Story

It's surprising how well they captured the essence of Robin Hood in such a short runtime. The film's climax is Robin freeing the villagers from debtor's prison and robbing Prince John blind. When a 70's Disney animation is more true to Robin Hood's origin than anything that has come after, it's a very sad state of affairs indeed. This is perfect family entertainment.

Misc./Technical aspects

The animation clearly does not match the studio's work from when it has been doing well. But it's not awful, you can just see that the budget was limited. We still love all the character designs and only the one and true Robin Hood film has more stunning colours. Love, love, love the music - in particular Roger Miller's songs. 


The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)


 


     




 Characters

Robin: The embodiment of who Robin Hood is to us. Flynn's joviality, the deep care he has for the downtrodden and the iron moral backbone have always been what defined Robin Hood to us. He hasn't a single selfish bone in his body, but he's not without fault. He can be impetuous and impulsive to the point of stupidity. 
Marian: Holy shit. If there is something amiss in modern film-making, it's the fact that a female character from 1938 is still the best version of this character. De Havilland's Marian is amazing, especially by today's standards. She's the only one in the film who has a transformative character arc, and how often can you say that about modern male-led or even some female-led, movies?!? And the fact that she doesn't do any fighting simply makes her character better, because she has to survive just with her wits. To this day, de Havilland's Marian is the only one to have saved Robin. And although she doesn't fight, she ain't a goddamn "damsel in distress" either. She faces certain death with absolute composure while voicing her contempt for the tyrants who would hang her. It's no wonder that the characters of Robin and Marian have never been done better, because they are utter perfection here. 
Merry Men: They're all here and they have great rapport with Robin and each other. The scenes that summarise Robin's attitude and equal camaraderie with the group are Robin's joyful response "I love a man that can best me!" to Little John after their fight and when he consults the men what to do with the ransom gold they've stolen. 
Villains: Claude Rains, man. It's like The Holy Trinity of villains. Prince John is the driving force with the main motive, Guy of Gisborne is his right-hand man with a creepy crush on Marian and the Sheriff is a bumbling idiot with impeccable comedic timing. 

Story

It's perfection and we couldn't think of a single improvement. It's an unattainable balance of adventure, fun, romance and even drama. In comparison to other Robin Hood versions, this movie highlights quite adeptly that othering a group of people is an acceptable way of normalising oppression, and this oppression always includes economic aspects. 

Misc./Technical aspects

The colours are sublime, and this was one of the first ever Technicolor - movies. It's still miles better than anything else we've reviewed here, how is that even possible?!??! This has the musical score for Robin Hood. Other technical aspects are beyond brilliant as well. It's incredible that this movie is 81 years old and the industry has made such strides and yet we could not suggest a single change to improve anything in this masterpiece. We even love the fucking tights and bent swords. In addition, the film literally saved lives.