The Invisible Man: How to Remake A Film

The Invisible Man in 2020 is a remake of a film called The Invisible Man from 1933, which itself is an adaptation of the book The Invisible Man written in 1897 by H.G. Wells. The 2020 film shifts the focus from the titular Invisible Man, to his victim, Cecilia (Elizabeth Moss). The Invisible Man (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) is mainly used as a tension-building device, with the camera lingering on empty spaces, making the audience wonder if the villain is actually present or not.

Remakes are a contentious subject in movies today. They are films that make a huge amount of money, but rarely do they garner any critical acclaim. The subject of remakes may be even more far reaching if you consider remaking other mediums, such as comics or books as film remakes as well. I can overlook them, as the medium of the written word is vastly different from a motion picture, each with their own strengths and drawbacks. What I am focusing on is the remaking of another film, as they are easier to compare.

The Invisible Man is the perfect film to attempt to remake. Disregarding the idea of a “Dark Universe” film franchise that the Universal production studio has attempted (which this film has nothing to do with), The Invisible Man is still a recognizable character, but is so far removed from today by time that many film goers will have very little expectations of it to be similar to the original. I, myself, do not know anyone that has seen the original film. And while the original Invisible Man is held in high regard, it is not a film like Casablanca or Gone With the Wind, where they are still widely viewed today.

This is not the case for most filmic remakes. The vast majority of remakes are of films that are so recognizable, and were made so recently that almost everyone has seen it. Disney’s remakes are the most egregious of these. Beauty and the Beast was first released in 1991 and was remade in 2017. The Lion King was made in 1994 and was remade in 2019. And these are not just any films. They are some of the most beloved films of the decade and the Lion King was the second highest grossing film at the time of its release.

These films are iconic and any remake would have to behold to the scenes and moments that make those films iconic. The characters, songs, scenes and even general structure of these remakes must be strictly adherent to the original’s, or the filmmaker risks angering fans. Could you imagine the remake of Beauty and the Beast without the song number Be Our Guest? It technically can be cut from the film with minimal effort, as it does not strictly move the plot along or bring forth too much new information that cannot be conveyed through dialogue.

Now should Be Our Guest be cut? Not necessarily. But the point is that it handcuffs the filmmaker. One music number does not change too much, but all of these moments add up and mean that there can be less and less that the filmmaker is allowed to change and make the film its own. Could the Lion King remake be made Hakuna Matata, or even the characters of Pumbaa, Timone, or Rafiki? It would be unthinkable now, but in 60 years from now? Maybe not.

As stated previously, The Invisible Man (2020) does not focus on the Invisible Man, rather his victim of Cecilia. Now, I do not really know the atmosphere around the original Invisible Man movies, but I could see it as big of a change as if the new Mulan film be about Captain Li Shang, while Mulan takes a more secondary role. Again, this may not be a good idea, but with enough separation, it could be an idea that can be entertained.

Mulan is possibly the best idea for a remake of a Disney animated movie. If the trailers and all the information is correct, this film is very different from the original Disney film. There is no in-universe singing like in the animated version and no talking dragon. This is clearly a good move. People will lament and moan about the loss of Mushu and the well-remembered musical numbers, but at least this film, by dropping those important features, give it a reason to exist. If those changes are enough to justify its existence is up to the audience, but it is impossible to tell without seeing the movie.

And that is the final great aspect of the Invisible Man. Not only does it change the characters, setting and tone of the original film, it does it in a way that completely changes the meaning of the film. This new film is a metaphor for abusive relationships, and it works on multiple levels. How describing a beloved figure as abusive can be as difficult as convincing people that there is an invisible person, and that the impact of the abuse extends even when the abuser is not there, as if they were invisible and watching your every move.

It is similar to the remake of Judge Dredd in 2012. It strengthens the narrative of poverty and the question of authority and the police. But what Dredd has over all of the remakes previously mentioned is that the original Judge Dredd is not a great film. All these films, from The Invisible Man to Mulan are all held in high regard as great films. Judge Dredd, however, is mostly remembered by Sylvester Stallone’s strange performance, and not as any film of particularly high quality. In reality, these should be the films we should be remaking. Judge Dredd was a movie that had some good ideas, but the execution was lacking. Dredd took those ideas and expanded and improved on them to make a much better movie. We don’t need another Lion King, and it would be a Herculean effort to make a remake that would be better than the original, and I feel that the effort would be best put to original ideas.

Make no mistake, The Invisible Man is not a perfect film. It is not even that great of a movie. There are some major plotholes, or at least moments that take some big leaps in logic to accept them. I also was slightly disappointed in the presentation of the film after the prologue. The beginning of the film is set in the shared house of Cecilia and Adrian, the Invisible Man. The house is massive and sparse, which really drives home the feeling of isolation that Cecilia is feeling and has a very strong atmosphere to it. However, outside of that house, I find that the atmosphere does dip in quality. There are a lot of the shots where the camera is slightly off-center on the characters, suggesting that there is another presence that no one can see. However, as Cecilia is being isolated and becoming more alone, it was hard for me to feel that isolation. When everything else in the film is so effectively communicated, I felt that this isolation was communicated fairly poorly. I think that it would have done well to take a page from It Comes at Night or Hereditary, where the films both have claustrophobic feel simply by the way the camera shots are framed, and I thought that personality was lacking in the second half of the film.

But outside of all those things, Elizabeth Moss gives a great performance, and the through line of domestic abuse gives the film a strong feeling of importance, and it is timely for today. Also, and maybe most importantly, it is a remake that relies very little on the original film and it changes the original story to better reflect the time that it was made. So, even if it was not perfect I would take it over a hundred remakes of the Lion King.

Uncut Gems: Creating Tension

Uncut Gems is the latest film by the Safdie Brothers, well known for their previous film Good Time. It stars Adam Sandler as Howard Ratner, a Jewish jewelry shop owner who scores big, but is always searching for the next big score.

Both Good Time and Uncut Gems are harrowing, hair-pulling tense experiences that leave you yelling at the screen, or curled into yourself, trembling.

Uncut Gems creates this tension from the main character making terrible decisions and the audience knows it. Its similar to Jeremy Saulnier’s movies Blue Ruin and Green Room, where characters make purposefully bad decisions. All of the previously mentioned films walk the tightrope of having characters make bad decisions and still make them human and understandable.

This is a huge problem that plagues a lot of horror films. One film that this harms in a major way, in my opinion, is Hush (spoilers ahead). Hush is the story of a deaf woman who is tormented by a man from outside her house. Past half-way in the movie, a friend of the deaf woman comes to the house, and he is greeted by a man trying to get into her house. This would be intruder introduces himself as a police officer, and with no proof of this claim, the friend believes the intruder and even helps him find the hidden key to the house. That is when she finally gets a message out to her friend, but its too late and the intruder bashes her friend’s skull in with a rock.

The friend made a bad decision. He came to the house and believed this shady man without any proof of him being a police officer. This is compounded because not many people would be fooled by this, and the friend is not the main character and we don’t know anything about him. This totally breaks the immersion of the film, and just seems like a cheap way for the filmmaker to progress the plot after being written into a corner.

This is not a problem for Uncut Gems and the bad decisions are made with a purpose, and that purpose is to ratchet up the tension.

This is not the only thing that builds tension in the movie. Characters continually speak over each other, making a more manic, free-flowing and anxiety-filled environment. Characters can’t fully get their thoughts and speech across without someone else talking over them, imposing themselves over others. There are lots of up-close shots that make the viewer uncomfortable. One shot that stuck with me was when Howard was calling Demany (Lakeith Stanfield) while at the Weeknd’s concert. He is unable to get a hold of him as the camera pans out over a packed crowd, showing how isolated Howard is in this packed room of people enjoying themselves.

But a main reason for the tension in the film, I feel, is Howard’s bad decisions. This movie’s plot could be resolved as soon as it begins and the audience knows it. It is established that in events before the film, Howard is in serious debt. He has also bought a rare black opal and has set up an auction for it. All Howard has to do is not show Kevin Garnett his black opal. But instead, he has to show off his new big score to the biggest client he has had in his store. And that is relatable, who hasn’t wanted to show off something they have just bought or accomplished?

And even then, he did not have to lend Kevin Garnett the opal. He could have shown off the opal and told Garnett that it was up for auction in the next week. He pawned off Garnett’s NBA title ring and could have used the money to pay off his debts, but instead he bets it all on Garnett, reaching for that next big score, that next high. It feels very similar to gambling at the casino, and that is the truth of the character. Howard is addicted to gambling, and can’t stop. Everyone knows someone with an addiction and knows how hard it is to break it off. We see his lavishly furnished apartment, filled with luxuries that could be sold off to pay off his debts if needed. He artificially raises the bids on the opal at the eventual auction, leading to his own father-in-law (Judd Hirsch) to purchase it. But we see that Garnett was willing to pay enough for it, without Howard running up the price. He then sells the opal to Garnett, and instead of using the money to pay off his debts, he bets it all again.

We as the audience know that these are all bad decisions, and some of the tension is mentally or vocally yelling at Howard to take the clearly correct path. We know what he should do, and we believe that deep down Howard might know it as well, but he always makes the wrong decision.

But were these really the wrong decisions?

Part of the strength of Howard’s decision making in the film is that in theory, in Howard’s mind and in the film’s universe, these decisions technically could work. We can see why Howard could see these plans working, and some of them do. He does have money, but bets it to get more, and it is a successful bet (before it was pulled out of). Running up the price would have got a few thousand dollars more out of Kevin Garnett, but he continued to run up the price and was particularly greedy. But in the perfect world, any of these plans technically would have worked, and they come oh-so-close to working. So we as an audience see these almost working, so we can further empathize with Howard. We can see how these plans would work out in his mind, and that they mostly do, but they never quite work out.

These decisions would not be as effective if we could not see the merit in them. It is important that we could put ourselves in Howard’s shoes and see us making those same decisions. In the Hush example, I do not see me making the same decisions if I was in the friend’s shoes, and I cannot see the reason behind it. However, all Howard’s decisions are realistic for someone in his position, and anyone could see them technically working, if not for one flaw or another.

Without the possibility of succeeding, the film turns bleak and fatalistic. You feel that Howard is trapped by his debtors and that there is no hope for him to make it out of that situation. This could work for a very dark film, but does not lend itself to a tense experience. For tension to exist, we need to believe that the character could make it out of this situation, and this film expertly shows that there are many different paths Howard could take to get out of this position. But he never does.

Another form of tension I personally found at the end of the film, was to see how Howard would ultimately fail. We see him hit it big on his biggest bet yet and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The only problem is that this is a movie and Howard is a bad character. He is a well written, fleshed out character, but he is a bad person. And I felt that if Howard finished the film on top, it would be the film condoning his actions. I thought that he could not win because people like this in movies don’t win. It was equal points surprising that Howard won, and still tense because you are still expecting the fall.

Decisions in movies are essentially choices between two or more options. The best, most compelling decisions in storytelling are the ones that have multiple viable options. If a character could pick either option, there is tension in the audience on which choice the character is going to make. Obviously, in the long run, one option can be overall the correct one, and one option can be overall bad, but the trick is to make the bad decision a realistic option for the character. Bad decisions are where a character has no reason to make that decision other than to move the story forward. Where Uncut Gems succeeds and most other films fail, is that each decision made has a purpose and a reason why it was made, making Howard relatable, and the film heart-pounding.

Bojack Horseman: Subverting the Ending

Bojack Horseman is one of the greatest television show of all time. Even during the somewhat rocky start that is the first half of season one, there is a lot to enjoy and sink your teeth into. Bojack (Will Arnett) is still a broken figure, crippled by his addictions to alcohol, stardom and the past. Diane’s (Alison Brie) past is explored in her visit to her family and the hurts that they caused her. Todd’s (Aaron Paul) rock opera is ruined by Bojack’s purposeful sabotage. And then there is the episode “The Telescope”. But upon first viewing, these events do not feel as powerful as they do in later seasons, but that is due to the viewer.

The first season of Bojack Horseman is the only season where the audience does not know the mission statement of the show. The show from the beginning, is a deconstruction of sitcoms and tv shows in general. It takes the idea that most tv shows adhere to, which is that everything will have closure by the end of the episode, season or show, and flips that to the exact opposite. Nothing is ever closed by the end of an episode, and story lines either continue, or fade into non-satisfying endings.

These are exemplified in the episode “Prickly Muffin” and in the ending of “The Telescope”. “Prickly Muffin” is the story of when Sarah Lynn (Kristen Schaal), the actress who played the youngest orphan in Bojack’s sitcom Horsin’ Around, finds her way to Bojack’s house. She proceeds to take advantage of Bojack’s hospitality and home to throw a huge party. This continues until Bojack is convinced by Todd and Diane to put an end to it. He rectifies this by taking Sarah Lynn to a carnival on a dock and sitting with her while looking at the sunset. This would be the perfect answer to the dilemma of Sarah Lynn’s partying on a sitcom. Bojack even nails this concept home by imagining the final credits scrolling down the sunset. However, this does not fix the problem like a sitcom. Sarah Lynn returns and pawns Bojack’s trophy, which he gave to her sentimentally, to buy more drugs and continue to party. “The Telescope” is even more blunt with this concept, with Bojack openly admitting that he visits the house of his dying old friend, Herb Kazzazz (Stanley Tucci) solely for closure and to ease his mind about past wrongs. But Herb does not forgive him to not give him closure.

These moments make rewatching season 1 of Bojack Horseman such an enjoyable experience. From the fact that Sarah Lynn states that she wants to be an architect, to the music video for her hit song Prickly Muffin being set in a planetarium, to Emily’s (Abbi Jacobson) small cameo in a flashback in the episode “Zoes and Zeldas”. But it also gives added weight to the more serious scenes, like the aforementioned scenes with Diane’s family and the ruining of Todd’s rock opera. In any other adult animation show, like Family Guy for example, these awful things are fairly commonplace and have little to no impact on the characters. It would stand to reason that audiences would assume that Bojack works under the same principles as those other shows. So the fact that Bojack ruined Todd’s rock opera does not register as a major event, since we have been conditioned to believe that this will be taken as water under the bridge, and that this will have no impact on the characters and all will be forgotten or forgiven by the next episode.

And so, Bojack Horseman goes forward for six seasons, going firmly against all conventions of adult cartoons and television in general up until its final episodes. The penultimate episode, “The View from Halfway Down”, is the culmination of everything the show has stood for. The show’s tradition of having the second-last episode of every season being rather abstract and strange, by having the entire episode being a dinner party and presentation with Bojack, and all the important characters that have died around him: Herb, Sarah Lynn, Corduroy Jackson Jackson (Brandon T. Jackson), Bojack’s mother Beatrice (Wendie Malick), Bojack’s uncle Crackerjack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) and a amalgamation of Bojack’s father and his childhood father-figure Secretariat (Will Arnett). They chase a cardinal out of the house and play a game during dinner about the best and worst moments of their lives, while enjoying their final meals. After the meal, each character makes a performance before entering a door that leads to infinite blackness. Soon this blackness is not confined to the door, and begins to consume everything around Bojack, as he comes to the realization that he is drowning in the pool. He makes a phone call to Diane before accepting his fate calmly as the black consumes him.

Only Bojack does not die. There is no closure for Bojack Horseman the show. The final season takes place after Bojack has been arrested for breaking into his old house, and he has been allowed leave for Princess Carolyn’s (Amy Sedaris) wedding to Judah (Diedrich Bader). He has conversations with each of the main characters of the show, and it ends with Bojack and Diane, sitting on the roof, staring at the stars. Each turns to each other, as if they are about to say something to the other, before deciding against it and the silence stretches. The show that has gone against all television conventions of closure and endings just denied everyone of closure.

Bojack has just had a major relapse, after the first half of the final season showed Bojack at his strongest and most stable. If he could not become sober in the previous season, doesn’t the future hold bleak things for Bojack? Shouldn’t it follow that one day Bojack will have such a bad bender that leaves him dead? We will never know.

And that is like life is it not? Life is rife with non-endings and unfulfilling interactions. So is it any surprise that a show that was praised for its realistic portrayal of mental illness and addiction would have a realistic, subdued ending. Because sure, sometimes life is a bitch and you die, but most often, life’s a bitch and you keep on living.

It reminds me of an ending from a Cohen Brothers movie, whose movies are also known for their ambiguous endings. Particularly that of Inside Llewyn Davis, where the film ends exactly how it begins, implying that what we see is just a regular week in Llewyn’s life, and his life goes on after this and we are just privy to one small fraction of his life.

Its a similar conceit for the ending of Bojack Horseman, just not as explicit. At it’s heart, Bojack is a show about the darkest chapters of our main casts’ lives. Bojack is a washed up has been, addicted to alcohol and drugs and spiraling further into worse and worse relapses and drug trips. Princess Carolyn struggles to balance her work life, social love life and her perceived purpose in life. Diane goes through a messy divorce and moves from living on Bojack’s couch for a while to struggling with depression and pharmaceuticals. Mr. Peanutbutter (Paul F. Tompkins) undergoes his own existential crisis and transverses many romantic escapades in the search to be happy. And Todd has lived on various couches throughout the show and searches for romantic and occupational meaning.

But by the end of the show, all of these characters have rectified these problems. Princess Carolyn has a daughter and is married to Jonah. Diane has moved out to Texas with her fiance and has seemed to find stability in her life. Todd has a steady job babysitting and has his own place with his girlfriend. Mr. Peanutbutter decides to forgo dating and focus on himself and his own happiness. All the other main characters have resolved their main flaws and are better off than we have seen them in all of the show.

Which leaves Bojack. Is he at the best place we have seen him in the show? The theme of the rest of the characters suggest yes. Bojack is in jail and is doing well, but worries about what will happen when he gets out. We have reason to believe that Bojack will relapse, he’s done it throughout the whole show. Season 2’s new Bojack lasted only a few episodes, Season 6’s rehabilitated Bojack is brought to his lowest point in the whole series. But if the rest of the cast is in the best emotional shape of their lives, why not Bojack?

So does Bojack Horseman really not have any closure? If you look at it as the story of the lowest moments in these characters, then the show really does finish at the highest note. I am not surprised that there has been rampant speculation on continuing the storyline later and sequel shows as technically there is no reason why there couldn’t be. There were no major character deaths, no unrepairable character events, but I think it has closure in its own way. Its no traditional Hollywoo ending, but I think its special and perfect in its own way and adding on to it would just ruin the experience. Because sometimes the show ends, but life goes on.

Take Shelter vs. The Invitation: What is the Point?

Looking on the surface, Take Shelter and The Invitation do not have too much in common. Take Shelter is the story about Curtis (Michael Shannon) who has prophetic dreams of a devastating storm, his quest of building a storm shelter to survive it, and how it affects his life, particularly with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and his deaf daughter Hannah (Tova Stewart). The Invitation is about Will (Logan Marshall-Green) and his girlfriend Kira (Emayatzy Corinealdi) who are invited to a party by Will’s ex-wife Eden (Tammy Blanchard). Before long Will is suspecting that there is more to this party that meets the eye.

These movies are both in the same thriller category that I like to call a reveal movie. It’s a film that transparently setting up a question to the audience, a question they will nurture with hints and clues throughout the movie, before ultimately revealing the truth by the end. The quintessential movie in this category is Split. We are told of the Beast personality multiple times throughout the movie, and we are also told of how impossible that this personality could exist as the Horde (James McAvoy) view him as. The viewer can be persuaded from one opinion to the other during the course of the movie before the ending shows that the Beast was all that was promised by the Horde and more.

The mystery queried by Take Shelter is if the night terrors that Curtis is experiencing are warning him of a real life coming storm, or if it is a symptom of schizophrenia, a condition that we are shown is in his family.

The Invitation asks the question if there is something sinister behind this dinner party, or if Will is being too paranoid and making connections that aren’t really there.

The difference between these two movies is that I can see either two options of Take Shelter being true and making a meaningful narrative. With The Invitation, I can only see one option since the very beginning of the film that would create a meaningful narrative.

I’ll explain the options of Take Shelter first and how they can both be viable routes for the story to take. No matter what direction the story takes, it shows how paranoia, a lack of communication and mental illness can effect a person and ruin relationships. Curtis feels that he is unable to accurately explain his dreams to others around him and sees what damage he causes. He later decides to see a specialist and talk to his wife about those dreams, and attempts to fix his broken relationship. This is exemplified by his struggles to learn sign language early in the movie, to his growing proficiency later when he opens up to others. What the first three quarters of this movie presents us with is a movie that can go in any direction and be worthwhile.

Whether the storm is real or not, it still shows an accurate portrayal of mental illness and what it can do if not taken care of and talked about. if the storm is real, the first portion of the movie is a cautionary tale on lack of communication to a loved one about anything. If the storm is not real, it is explicitly about schizophrenia and how it can affect someone’s life.

Sidenote: I kind of feel that the ending of Take Shelter is a bit greedy and wants to have it’s cake and eat it too. The movie seemingly ends with a false alarm storm; a storm that came, but was no where near as terrible as Curtis’ dream and Curtis and his family seeing a doctor and getting the next steps to battle his condition. However, in an epilogue scene, Curtis and his family is playing on a beach when, in the distance, the storm Curtis had been dreaming of appears. To me, it felt like they wanted to have both endings, one where the storm is just an hallucination, and one where the storm is real. It worked fine enough for me, but seemed a little greedy.

This is where the problem with The Invitation arrises. So much of the movie is predicated on Will questioning the motives of the party-goers, and them denying them. The question I had throughout the movie was “What would be the point of the movie if the party was normal?” What if this is all in Will’s head and there really isn’t any sinister forces? My answer was that there really wasn’t one. There was not the strong throughline of mental illness that Take Shelter had, and if our main character was just paranoid, I felt that there would have been no point other than the filmmaker gloating that they got you to believe that the party was malevolent. And I don’t think that is a good enough reason for a movie to exist. So much of the film’s running time before the reveal is focused on teasing and misleading the audience that there didn’t feel like a strong enough throughline. It could have been a study of jealousy and paranoia in a relationship like marriage. Have more of a backstory and examples of Will’s paranoia in his previous relationship, because my impression of him was that he was a fairly level-headed man throughout the film. The reveal could have worked, if it gave the other option a viable reason for existing.

Let’s take the example of Split, and the options that the Beast is real, and that the Beast is not real. If it turned out that the Beast was not as advertised by the Horde, then the film would still work as an exploration of extreme mental illness and how trauma from our past affects us. If the Beast is real, then all those previous points are still valid, while being a set up for future films. Both reveals are equally plausible in the meta of the film itself. It could have made either choice and had a point to being made. It could have even had more meaning, if the movie had some more religious symbolism and imagery, as the Horde see the Beast as an almost religious figure, a saviour that the personalities are not sure exists.

Both of these movies establish early that there is a fork in the road upcoming, and they can only take one. However for this concept to work, each road must be viable to take. If one road is wide open and one runs directly into a brick wall, it is near impossible for me to believe that the movie will take that path. And if the film does not have much more going for it, it provides a predictable slog that is hard to watch the whole way through.

Bombshell: The Wrong Protagonist?

Preface: I am not very familiar with the events surrounding the true story behind this film. I have heard of Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly and Rupert Murdoch but had not heard of the other characters.

I was surprised to learn that Bombshell ran under two hours. Nothing against shorter movies, I had just assumed that it would be longer. And I don’t really understand why it wasn’t.

Bombshell is about three women working at Fox, Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron), Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) and the abuse that they face at the hands of Roger Ailes (John Lithgow) and the men at the Fox News office.

The film mostly follows Megyn Kelly, opening with her preparing for a debate with Donald Trump, and focusing on the fallout of that event. I think that this is a good place to start and to enter the viewer into the world that is Fox News and all the commonplace goings-on in the company and how it functions. However, I think after this the movie should have shifted focus to another character, that of Gretchen Carlson.

I found Gretchen to be the most interesting character in the film, and the most important. She is the one that starts the chain of events that brings about the downfall of Ailes, and has seemingly the most action in the film. Kayla is an important character as she shows how extreme the sexual harassment was, as there was not this form of harassment to Megyn or Gretchen during the time frame of the film, or at least not that was shown. Megyn is an important character as she was the main turning point that swung the lawsuit in the women’s favour, and being the biggest name in the case.

However, a large amount of this movie is Megyn debating with her team whether to speak out about the harassment in her past, and her deciding to wait for more women to speak out. The movie spends a lot of time with Megyn, and spends less time with the other two women.

I think this greatly hinders Gretchen’s character. While the reveal of Gretchen’s purposeful firing, and the fact that she had played Ailes was fun, I feel that it would have been more rewarding to see those plans take shape and been worked through. Instead of being a surprise to the audience, I feel that we should have been there, and seen the ideas form and be implemented. And then we can watch with glee as Ailes stumbles into every step that Gretchen and the lawyers devise for him. Instead, we are unsure how exactly the lawsuit is progressing and are waiting along with Megyn, which is accurate to the character, but does not make for the best viewing experience. I feel like the movie greatly misses out what could be a great legal war between Ailes and Gretchen.

Unfortunately for the movie, I think that this could have been an easy fix. The film could have just added a couple more scenes focusing on the lawsuit and Gretchen, and a lot of these problems are remedied. I don’t think that any portion should be cut down, as I feel that each character was given the weight that they deserved, outside of Gretchen. And since the film is less than two hours long, this extra length can be added on without becoming overlong.

I can understand if information was not available for that portion of the story, but that does not excuse the movie. It could be the best they could have done with the information available, but it still remains a flaw in the movie. More Gretchen would have given the movie more purpose, drive and action, and, ultimately, would have made a better movie.

Dunkirk vs. 1917: How Less is Sometimes More

This will have spoilers for both Dunkirk and 1917.

I would like to start this by saying that both of these movies are good. Great maybe. But I believe that one is a better film, and I think its interesting to explore why this is so.

Dunkirk is based on the real event, where allied forces were trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk, and their eventual rescue by civilian boats. 1917 tells the story of two soldiers that must sneak through no man’s land to deliver an important message to save a battalion of soldiers from a suicidal attack.

Do these films warrant being compared? They are about different wars and are structured completely differently. 1917 is set in World War 1 and Dunkirk is set on World War 2. 1917 is tightly focused on the two main characters, while Dunkirk has a massive ensemble cast told over a week. But I think that these films have enough similarities to be compared, and deserve to see why one works a lot more than the other.

For one, both are told in unconventional ways. 1917 is filmed with long takes and camera tricks to create the illusion of it being all in one take. Dunkirk is three different stories that take place at different time frames which all meet up at the end. These are also both realistic war films that use a lot of tension throughout the film.

1917 is the second movie that I have seen to be cheated to seem filmed in one shot. The first was of course Birdman (Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). That film was filmed to seem as one shot because it was directly tied to the theme and plot of the movie, and the one shot style lends itself better to the conversation-heavy Birdman film. Unfortunately, this amount of thought is not put into the reasoning behind the single shot method in 1917. I think that it greatly hobbles some of the action scenes, and the volume of them in the movie, as it is insanely difficult to film large, complex action scenes in one take. When the film does partake in action, it is always filmed very well, and at points the scale is mind-blowing, but I found these moments a bit scarce.

Dunkirk is composed of three timelines: the Mole which takes place over one week, the Sea which takes place over one day, and the Air, which takes place over one hour. The stories are woven together perfectly to ebb and flow into each other, ratcheting up the tension by never letting the audience rest for too long.

The positive about the long takes in 1917 is how the camera moves. Since the camera needs to be in certain spots throughout the film, it swings around to get into position for the next spot. Generally, in action thriller films like this one, the camera spins around to reveal new information, generally a new threat to the characters. Since the camera is always spinning in this way, the audience is constantly on edge, wondering if the next spin is just to set up the next shot, or to reveal something sinister.

The one negative I can point out about Dunkirk’s presentation is that it does not ever fully convey the length that the soldiers were trapped on that beach. It is mentioned at the beginning of the film that this third of the film takes place over one week, but I don’t think that I would have known that this time frame spans that amount of time without that title. More tension could have come from the situation if the audience could really feel the length of time those soldiers were trapped and the impending enemy soldiers that are steadily marching on them. However, I don’t know how that time could be conveyed without ruining the blistering pace that the film has, so this is a small complaint.

There is one big difference between 1917 and Dunkirk, and that is how they choose to show the horrors of war. 1917 focuses more on the blood, gore and tragedy of war, while Dunkirk shows that the true horror of war is the crushing impersonal nature of war and death.

Dunkirk was not rated R and shows very little in wounds and blood, and there is no gore whatsoever. 1917 shows the gorier side of war, with rotting horse carcasses in no man’s land, to walking by bodies strung up gruesomely in barbed wire and Schofield being startled into putting his hand into a wound in a rotted corpse. The gore of war is a large part of why war is so horrible, and seeing those bodies in such a gruesome way is definitely realistic, but I would say that it is less effective over repeated watches and can fade into the background, especially as movie viewers have lost some of their sensitivity to gore. The cold, uncaring nature of war is something that I think is far more effective and something that a movie has not really focused on, at least in the mainstream.

I think this difference in philosophies is best exemplified by one scene in 1917. The film’s two main characters, Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George Mackay) are walking through the countryside after narrowly surviving a tripwire bomb left in an abandoned German trench. Here we learn that Schofield had traded his medal for a bottle of wine, because he was thirsty and, as he states, “Its nothing but a bit of tin”. Blake cannot believe this, as he believes that the medal symbolizes more, its special and makes the owner of that medal special.

That is the main difference between Dunkirk and 1917. Dunkirk is like Schofield. It feels like anyone can die at any time, and there really isn’t a “main” character in a sense. Any character can die and the movie would continue in mostly the same way. This gives the movie more tension simply because anyone can die within the story.

This is not the case with 1917. At least one of the main characters, Blake or Schofield, must survive to the finale, because that is the way that the story is structured. If both characters die before they reach the battalion they are warning, or before the end of the movie, then the anything before that point in the movie would be moot. All the character work and motivations built up in the movie prior would feel pointless if they did not make it to the end of the film.

And when Blake dies part way through the film, it has the effect of robbing the rest of the film of tension for Schofield. The film is shot in one shot, and that means it is completely focused on Schofield. There is no where to cut to, no b-plot or other characters to add tension to the film. We are just following a character we know cannot die at least until the end of the movie, and for me, that killed the tension for the rest of the movie completely. Luckily, I thought the visuals in the movie really picked up after Schofield is knocked out, and I thought most of the shots afterwards, particularly the burning city and the freshly dug trenches to be stunning.

A small difference I found in the ability of these films to build up tension was the soundtrack choices. The soundtrack for 1917 was fine, but nothing stood out to me for it. It did its job, but never really stood out good or bad. The soundtrack for Dunkirk however, is not much like any soundtrack I had previously heard, and does wonders to ratchet up the tension. The ticking clock motif rams home the lack of time that the boats and planes have to rescue the soldiers on the beach and the impending enemy forces. I think this is particularly effective when a large group of soldiers are trapped in a grounded ship that is being fired at as target practice with the rising tide, along with a pilot that is trapped in his crashed plane in the middle of the ocean with the plane quickly sinking. Not only is this scene stressful in itself (the soldiers in the boat and the pilot in the plane could all realistically perish at this point in the film), but the music does a really fantastic job of keeping the momentum while cutting between these two scenes and keeping the tension mounting.

In conclusion, I think that these are both good movies. Each does have its flaws and high-points, like every movie. However, I feel that the highs are higher in Dunkirk rather than 1917. Most of the things that I enjoyed about 1917 were very surface level, and the problems I had with it were deeper. I found some of the story decisions and plot points stupid, like Schofield trusting an enemy soldier to stay silent after attacking him or the river dumping Schofield right where he needed to be. These are not large problems, but do add up and Dunkirk, I feel, had very few of these moments. And while the characters of 1917 were more central to the plot and well developed than those in Dunkirk, I think it hurt the film, more than helped it. The lack of main character in Dunkirk gives the film much more tension and greatly shows the coldness of war, better than what 1917 was capable of.

Cats: How to Alienate an Audience

Foreword: Before a word of this is read or even written, it must be said that I have not seen or heard anything of the Cats Broadway play. Afterwards, I have seen few snippets of videos of the musical online to gain some meager insight into the play. I also viewed this under slight intoxication and in a small group of friends. I feel that this did not greatly effect my analysis of the movie, but is worth note. I am also no expert in any shape or form. This constitutes my opinion and will steer away from more explicit conversations on aspects of film-making, such as animation and many more technical aspects.

Cats is a movie that is flawed at its core. The common criticism of CGI is well worth exploring, however, it is not the only shortfall of the film. With flawless CGI, great costumes, or a non-nightmare inducing design, the story and the writing still fall well short of any mark set. That is the plot is non-existent, and the dialogue is confusing at best, and utterly pointless at worst. The lack of backstory and expository dialogue is completely alienating to an audience that does not understand what precisely is occurring within the plot.

The film opens with the main character Victoria (Francesca Hayward) being abandoned by her human owner, the only human vaguely seen in the film. After a rough looking fall in a sack that leaves you wondering if the cat inside is still alive, other cats that have previously been kept in the shadows creep towards the writhing sack. These designs were given the reverence that they deserved, that being cats from a strange horror movie. They are kept in shadows, the first song is set largely in a graveyard with long shadows and dim, silvery moonlight, and the cats sing in low whispered tones. The human hands are incredibly disturbing, and the song has some questionable subject matter.

The song is about the naming of cats, where it is explained that a cat has three names. The greatest sin that this song commits is not its own, simply that the naming idea is brought up in the first song, ignored for the entirety of the film and is heavily featured in the final monologue performed by Old Deuteronomy (Dame Judi Dench). The first song describes the three different names that a cat has. The first is the most straight forward: it is the name that we as humans give to our pets. The question posed by this is if stray cats have this name as well. Most of the cats in this film are portrayed as wild alley cats, which at least some must have not been named by humans. But the song makes the three naming structure of cats seem universal as “…I tell you a cat must have three different names…” (Munkustrap (Robbie Fairchild) explains to Victoria in The Naming of Cats). Do cats not actually require three names? What exactly do these other names represent? The only difference between two of the names is the strangeness of them, like Victoria compared to Munkustrap etc. What does that mean? These questions are left unanswered, which would not be a large problem, except that a large amount of the final monologue that sums up the movie implies that we the audience have learned something about the naming of cats. As a quirky way to introduce the cats of the movie and the unusual names that many of them possess, it can work well (besides the terrifying effect of the chant-singing, setting and character designs), but the final monologue ruins this song by burdening it and the rest of the film with more meaning.

This song is quickly transitioned to the song about the character Jennyanydots (Rebel Wilson). The song is about her being an “Old Gumbie Cat” and about her past time of training mice and cockroaches to dance and play music. Cats, having the luxury of being a musical about talking cats performing to ascend to something called the Heaviside Layer, means that the film has little problem with the suspension of disbelief. Having an overweight, lazy cat that trains musical prey items is totally believable in this world. The way that the song is introduced, by Munkustrap singing his praises of Jennyanydots as his “Gumbie cat in mind”. In the moment, especially after the introduction of the Jellicle Ball, I assumed that cats needed to be volunteered forward by other cats, and that a Gumbie cat was the name of these Heaviside hopefulls. This is not the case, and it might be my own bad intuitions, but there is a total lack of story logic in this musical moment.

Character and story logic is very different from logic within the movie’s own universe. As mentioned before, the subject matter of this song is wholly believable and there is not a moment where an audience member would think that this song would not occur in this universe. But what purpose does this song serve in the plot? Jennyanydots is a side character, or secondary character at best. She sings this song, gets kidnapped by Macavity (Idris Elba), and fights two captor cats before disappearing from the film. The reincorporation of her fur suit, however traumatizing that visual was, was a nice call back, but after this fight none of the cats make a return (something that will be addressed towards the end). I personally believe that an introduction to Mistoffelees (Laurie Davidson) would have been much more worth while and important. Magical Mr. Mistoffelees is a main character, the love interest in the end for Victoria (our main character) and struggles with his magical abilities in his own song much later in the film. I think a major introduction to this character would have greatly influenced his impact on the story.

Leaving my head’s fantasy of a good movie coming from this, we are brought to the song from the Rum Tum Tugger (Jason Derulo). This song interrupts the largely pointless song from Jennyanydots to the totally aimless The Rum Tum Tugger. He is, indeed, a “curious cat”, in the fact that, at least in the movie, he has no purpose to the plot. His song is an amusing look into the more frustrating aspects of a cat’s personality, like always being on the wrong side of every closed door or the excessive pickiness of his eating habits. Unfortunately, this character work is wasted on a character that can be found in the background and periphery of the movie and makes no direct impact on the story. His song is dripping with machismo and sex appeal, but especially with Munkustrap making bedroom eyes to most cats, it is mostly unneeded. Macavity even appears to Tugger in the movie but does not take him away, like he did with Jennyanydots. I interpolate this as the Rum Tum Tugger does not want to compete at the Jellicle Ball, since he loves his life so much that he does not want to change it. However, this is never explained to the audience. Not just his motivations (which should be left to interpretation for audiences), but if he has actually entered the Ball or not. Do the cats need to be previously entered to win? The decision at the end of the Ball suggests no, but we are never told. This is one of the smaller questions that all compile into a completely alienating experience.

The Rum Tum Tugger is interrupted by the appearance of Grizabella (Jennifer Hudson), who is shunned by all the other cats. Its explained that she used to be the Glamour Cat, but is now nappy and wanders the streets alone. It is mentioned in one line that she went with Macavity, but in what specific way we are not told. This coupled with the vagueness of Macavity in the story up to this point makes the other cats’ hatred of Grizabella confusing and something that the audience must just accept. This is fine in the moment, but Memories (besides an emotional performance from Hudson) gains its power from you caring of Grizabella’s plight. However, this song and her being kicked out of the Jellicle Ball are the only interactions that we as audience members have with her. And the crimes of Macavity are even vaguer, to the point that we do not know what he is. Is he a sort of evil gang leader and Grizabella is a member of this gang? Kind of. Macavity does have his gang of henchmen, but him and Grizabella are never seen interacting in the film. Did she run out of usefulness in Macavity’s posse? Did Grizabella see the depravity of Macavity and left his group, only to be shunned by the rest of the cats? We will never know.

This is followed by the introduction, and subsequent kidnapping of Bustopher Jones (James Corden). The song, like the ones before it, serves the purpose of introducing another minor character. He serves a small part of the inconsequential feeling fight at the end of the movie, and that is pretty much it. One major complaint is the fact that he mentions that he is self-conscious about his weight, in the middle of a song about his eating habits and weight. In the musical, this song (along with others) is sung by a different cat than its subject matter. It still would not make much more sense, as Bustopher would not appreciate a whole song being sung to him about his weight, but would be slightly more believable.

This would be a good time to discuss the humor used in the movie. This musical is similar to Tom Hooper’s last musical movie, Les Miserables, in which a vast majority of the dialogue in this film is sung. So whenever a character in the film stops singing to talk in strictly spoken dialogue, it feels out of place. Bustopher Jones interrupts his own song when a small cat cannot launch him into a garbage can, to spend a minute berating the cat. I find that musical moments are all about momentum and this moment completely takes the momentum out of the song, and the second half of the song does not have the momentum needed to continue. This is magnified as the audience discovers that everything so far in the movie is introducing characters that are not very important in the story. Jennyanydots does this in the Rum Tum Tugger song as well and it falls just as flat. Cats is not a strict comedy, and the comedy works best as integrated into the musical numbers, such as some lines in the Rum Tum Tugger song and the later Mungojerrie and Rumpelteazer song. These songs are examples of comedy well integrated into the musical’s universe and flows well in the story. The jealous Jennyanydots joke and the fat Bustopher Jones jokes are far too long and do not work in the context of the musical. Bustopher has a better example of a joke like this during the song sung by Growltiger (Ray Winstone), when he questions Growltiger’s slant rhyming of the word Thames. It is much shorter than the previous two jokes and makes fun of the musical format and some of the hoops lyric writers must jump through to rhyme plot points. This joke is not extremely unique, but it was executed far better than the first ones.

Macavity then appears at the end of the song sung by Bustopher Jones, tempts him with a large can of garbage, in which Bustopher jumps into and down a tube that takes him to a boat on the Thames. This would be a good time to discuss Macavity’s magical powers. As this movie has a strange hatred of exposition and backstory, the origin, extent and strength of Macavity’s powers are unexplained. The unexplained origin of the magical abilities is acceptable, except when it becomes a major plot point. The first time we see Macavity teleport a cat away to his barge on the Thames, he physically touches Jennyanydots. Then, Bustopher Jones is teleported through a garbage can to the barge, with no physical contact from Macavity. Later in the film, Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat (Steven McRae), taps a long, impressive spin which leads to him flying into the air and being teleported away, presumably by Macavity but we are not sure. As far as I know, Macavity was not even present in the scene. The only time that we have seen cats being teleported was due to Macavity, so we can assume it was due to him. But Old Deuteronomy is later shown teleporting up the Heaviside staircase to stop Macavity. So do all cats have this teleporting ability? Is it only certain cats that can do this? How do we know what cats can and cannot teleport? Later, Macavity steals Old Deuteronomy and is about to push her off the plank into the Thames, and Magical Mr. Mistoffelees is tasked with bringing her back. His characterization is so weak in this movie that his nervousness in performing his song was interpreted strangely. Was Mr. Mistoffelees really magical? I thought his apprehension was due to his actual lack of real magical abilities. Every magic trick performed by him could be seen as slight of hand, like real life “magic”, but it is implied he actually brought Old Deuteronomy back but that that action was shown off screen. Did Mr. Mistoffelees bring back Old Deuteronomy using his magic? Why could Old Deuteronomy just immediately teleport away from the barge?

After Macavity kidnaps Bustopher Jones and scares the rest of the cats off, Victoria is whisked away by Mungojerrie (Danny Collins) and Rumpleteazer (Naoimh Morgan), two rascal cats who break into homes to wreck havoc for fun. This is one of the most fun musical moments in the film, as it really takes advantage of the large background sets and has a stronger sense of fun than the other songs before. This song, however is ruined by the growing realization that this is all that the movie is, musical numbers that introduce cats that have very small part after their own song. This is the moment in the film where they have spent so much time introducing cats that you begin to realize that this is the whole movie. Filler songs that do not move forward the plot in any way.

Just think about what the plot of the movie is up to this point. Victoria is abandoned and introduced to the Jellicle Cats and the Jellicle Ball. She has since been introduced to multiple cats that might be contestants for the Jellicle Ball, which has not been fully explained at all. It can be assumed Jennyanydots and Bustopher Jones are both going to apply to go to the Heaviside layer, hence why Macavity kidnaps them. Macavity does not kidnap The Rum Tum Tugger, and later, when Macavity makes his claim as the sole contestant The Rum Tum Tugger is not a factor. This is simply confusing because all the other cats that have had individual songs previous and after are seen to be cats that are in the Jellicle Ball, but it seems The Rum Tum Tugger was not a cat entered in the Jellicle Ball. At first I tried to rationalize that The Rum Tum Tugger did not want to be reborn, as that is the one thing somewhat concretely explained about the Jellicle Ball. But that does not seem to make sense, since each cat that appears in the movie that is applying for a new life from the Heaviside layer seems to greatly enjoy their life. There is no complaints from Jennyanydots about her life of teaching mice and cockroaches to dance, and Bustopher Jones seems quite content to eat all the different delicacies from garbage cans around the alley. There are a few misgivings about his weight in a momentum killing joke in his song, but it does not seem to carry enough weight to change his life and be reborn as a different cat.

Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer eventually alert a dog in the house they are rampaging about in, and leave a trapped Victoria to be mauled by a dog. This is a nice little foreshadowing of their eventual betrayal of the other Jellicle Cats to Macavity, but that is a small moment of betrayal that does not seem to have much impact on the story or the viewpoints of the cats on Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer. But that is something for later. Victoria is rescued by a clumsy Mistoffelees in a moment that strengthens their relationship and cements Mistoffelees as one of the main characters. But I feel that if Mistoffelees’ character was established stronger before his rescue, this moment would have more impact on the audience. He is described as a timid and shy cat in articles about the musical, and his actions later in the movie strengthen that. But at this point, we as an audience do not necessarily know this. If a scene that truly established Mistoffelees’ shyness existed before this, then we as an audience would fully understand what he is doing in this scene. Rescuing Victoria from the dog is not a timid act, so Mistoffelees is going against his character to rescue her. This shows how much he cares for Victoria in this short time and gives his romantic feelings and their overall romantic relationship more weight.

After this, Victoria is told that Old Deuteronomy is about to arrive and the Jellicle Ball is about to begin. Old Deuteronomy is shown to slowly walk down the misty alley towards all the cats from who knows where. It is not a big complaint, and isn’t necessarily a problem. Old Deuteronomy is treated as an almost mythological figure, so the mysteries of her character and where she comes from adds to the character. However, among all the other vagueries and confusion in the movie beforehand, it just adds to the confusion.

Old Deuteronomy hobbles up the steps and leads all of the cats into the old theatre to begin the Ball. For a long time in the film there is not much to talk about. There is a lot of dancing and not much story. The dancing and choreography is impressive, but I cannot help but feel that this would be much more impressive live on stage, without cuts and awkward CGI. The most that happens is that Grizabella sneaks into the ball, only to hissed away by other cats. Victoria witnesses this and goes out to comfort the fleeing Grizabella. She sings the only original song in the film, Beautiful Ghosts which was written by Taylor Swift and Andrew Lloyd Webber. I was pleasantly surprised in the original song as it was integrated extremely well and the only reason I knew it was the original song was due to the credits at the end of the film.

Then we are introduced to Gus the Theatre Cat (Sir Ian McKellen), an old cat that used to play at all the best theatres. McKellen’s performance, however endearing I personally found it, raises more questions about the way that these cats move and their relationships to real life cats. As far as I can remember, Gus is the only cat that meows in the movie, he laps up milk like a cat does, and sometimes moves around in a cat-like manner (in a more attractive way than the cats slink around in the opening of the movie). But it puts into question why sometimes the characters move around like real life cats, and sometimes they walk around like humans. I think that if the cats moved more cat-like in the non-musical moments, and were totally human in their movements in the musical moments would have been less strange. Strict rules always helps the audience understand what is happening in the film, even if these rules are not stated or make logical sense. The cats in this film do not have rules to their cat-like behavior or the magic that some of them seem to possess, or the rules are not accurately conveyed to the audience.

Next up is the rapid fire introductions of Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat and Bombalurina (Taylor Swift) comes next. Skimbleshanks tap dances us through a day in his life working at the railway, before spinning into the air and teleporting out of the movie. Bombalurina descends on a crescent moon, that seemingly comes out of nowhere in the film, and drugs the Jellicle Ball with the help of Mungojerrie and Rumpelteazer. This seems like those two cats would have a negative relationship with the other Jellicle cats for siding with Macavity, but no such backlash exists.

Macavity then appears, and makes his claim for the trip to the Heaviside Layer. Old Deuteronomy refuses, and claims that she chooses the cat whose deserves it most. Upon hearing this, Macavity steals Old Deuteronomy, leaving the remaining Jellicle cats drugged and leader-less. Previous to this, Old Deuteronomy teleports to Macavity to stop him from climbing the staircase towards the Heaviside Layer, so it is confusing as to why Old Deuteronomy does not teleport away from Macavity’s barge as he is threatening her to walk the plank.

The Jellicle cats are distraught, but Victoria has an idea. Mr. Mistoffelees is a magical cat, so maybe he can magic Old Deuteronomy back. But Mr. Mistoffelees is rather nervous about the idea, and needs encouragement from the other cats to attempt his magic. This, unfortunately, is not clearly explained to the audience. Everyone I was with was convinced that Mr. Mistoffelees was not actually magical, just using sleight of hand tricks like real life magicians. However, I believe that this was Mr. Mistoffelees being stage shy, and nervous about performing in front of the other Jellicle cats, something not strongly conveyed through the whole movie. He seemed to dance and sing with the rest of them previously, and had shown no previous shyness.

He attempts to bring back Old Deuteronomy back many times throughout his song, but fails every time. The song dies down, before a new voice sings from behind the rest of the cats. Its Old Deuteronomy, back without explanation. Did Mr. Mistoffelees bring her back? Did she teleport herself back? I do not know.

Grizabella is then ushered into the hall and performs the big emotional finale, Memories. Jennifer Hudson gives a vocal performance that this movie does not deserve, and is chosen to rise to the Heaviside Layer. But, unlike the staircase Macavity attempted to climb, she is transported by hot air balloon. This is fortunate for Macavity, who appears on the roof and grabs a loose rope in an attempt to reach the Heaviside Layer. But Macavity cannot hold on, and he falls and is stranded on a tall statue. Why he cannot safely teleport away, I do not know.

During this, the kidnapped cats escape and fight off Growltiger, but this has no impact on the story and the characters do not return, because thankfully we are at the end of the film.

Old Deuteronomy performs a long monologue about how cats are not dogs, and she hopes that we learn something about the unknowable naming of cats. Not only is the naming of cats not been mentioned since the opening, and she states no new information on the subject. And with Judi Dench’s distinctly human hand squarely in frame, the film ends.

Conclusion

Cats is a truly horrible film, which is aimless, pointless, ugly and confusing. However, it has one saving grace, and its not what you think. It is the animation. It looks awful, and it seems like three quarters into the movie they had given up on animating everything, as Mr. Mistoffelees has completely human hands during his song, and Judi Dench has little to no fur on her face and neck during the final monologue of the film. I know that the only reason we had seen the film was to see how bad the animation was, and I’m sure we were not the only ones. Without that horrible animation, the movie would be just boringly aimless and bad. However the animation elevates it into something interestingly bad to watch. And interestingly bad is better than simply confusingly bad.

Introduce Yourself (Example Post)

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

  • Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
  • Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

  • Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
  • What topics do you think you’ll write about?
  • Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
  • If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started