An Analysis of Jim Henson's Labyrinth (Part 1) Oops, I Summoned the Inciting Incident

Part One- Whoops, I summoned the Inciting Incident

Ah, Labyrinth, how I love thee. Way back when in 1986 when you first came out, you were a flop, but now you have grown into a cult film beloved by many. I was far more cynical upon my first viewing of you, but my heart has softened as time went by and I gave you a few more viewings. My love for you has blossomed past your many sins. It has blossomed past the sometimes awkward acting. It has blossomed past the cheesy dialogue. It has blossomed past the insanely tight tights of the Bowie Bulge that caused many people to either gasp, snicker, or stare. It has grown past the fact that the songs were probably pointless. Now people can see you at your heart- and you are a fun, insanely creative, and exciting fantasy adventure with everything from humor to characters to heart to fear to great music.

                Since the film was marketed more towards kids and teenagers, there are some messages that are very explicit to the point where the characters say them- such as life is not fair, stick with your friends, etc. But this is a film that can have a wide variety of meanings and messages depending on one’s interpretation. Now if you disagree with anything I say from this point onward (and some things I am going to say, especially about a certain popular goblin king), I am not saying that you are stupid or you are wrong, or that you should feel any sort of guilt. Labyrinth, like many other films, is a different experience for every person who views it. I would just like to express what my interpretation of the film (using more than one literary theory) was beyond the seemingly simple messages. Also, I will assume that you, the reader, have watched all of Labyrinth, and know everything that happens. Unless you have not, and want to watch the movie without knowing anything, then you might not want to read this.

                Without further ado, let’s start at the beginning of the film and take a look at our films protagonist, Sarah Williams (played by Jennifer Connelly).

                

                   Now Sarah is an ordinary 15 year old girl who lives in suburbia. What makes her unique is that she has a huge passion for fantasy and fairy tales. She reads books like The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and acts out her favorite stories- one of them being from a book titled “Labyrinth”- outside wearing costumes and make-up. Her room is filled with fantasy books, games, dolls, and stuffed animals. But since she is a teenager, she is often criticized for having interests that are considered too juvenile for her age. She is probably not very popular at school, and although she wishes she could receive romantic attention from most likely boys, she is still hesitant about plunging into the world of romance, dating, and sexuality, especially if it means giving up herself. 

              

           Sarah has a rough relationship with her family. Her father, Robert, divorced her biological mother, Linda, some time ago. Now he has remarried another woman, named Irene, and has had a baby boy, named Toby, with her. Although Irene loves Sarah and wants what is best for her, she can be a little harsh and pushy.  Although she acts out of love and concern, she criticizes Sarah for not being like “other girls” and often tells her what she should do, which often concerns doing things teenage girls are traditionally expected to do (“Girls your age should have dates, I’d like it if you’d have dates.”). It grows to the extent that Sarah feels trapped and pressured (“I can’t do anything right, can I?”).

                

                 The other female role model Sarah has is her biological mother, who she does not see often. In the films script, not much is said out loud about Linda Williams and Sarah’s relationship with her, but there is a lot that can be implied through looking at her room and reading the novelization of the film. Sarah keeps a scrapbook full of pictures and newspaper clippings of her mother. From the titles of the clippings we can tell that she is an accomplished actress (looks like Sarah is clearly her mother’s daughter!). The posters of various musicals hanging up in Sarah’s room, such as Cats and Evita, are various shows that starred her mother. Linda has not only achieved fame, and fortune, but beauty and romance as well. A couple pictures from an article taking about the couples onstage and offstage romance, show her mother beside a (familiar looking) handsome, blond man with high cheekbones (according to the novelization, his name is “Jeremy”). Sarah idolizes her mother. Linda has everything Sarah wants but feels that she does not have; fame, beauty, fortune, an extraordinary career of playing pretend, and a glamorous, exciting romance with a dream prince along with being praised and desired. But the pressures to grow up, including taking on responsibility and accepting the strict standards her stepmother wants her to achieve sounds demanding and contradictory to the glamorous world she wants to attain when she reaches adulthood…or at least dream about from a safe distance. This is something many teenage girls can relate to; they have many things they want for themselves when they grow up. But when they reach adolescence, everyone around them, whether it be family members or the media, tries to tell them many mixed messages about who they are or what they should be or want (for example; “You don’t want to marry or have kids? Oh, you’ll change your mind once you find the right guy”, “Don’t wear so much make-up all the time, people won’t take you seriously,” and they range from “Having dates and lots of sex is the only way you will be considered a woman”, versus “You’re just a child, you don’t know what you want”, and that’s to name a few!). This leaves Sarah confused about what she wants out of life. She wants the glamour of adulthood and the light-hearted fun of childhood at the same time.

                Her frustration climaxes when she is left alone at home to babysit little Toby while her parents go out on a date. There are a few ways we can interpret Toby, but the one we will touch on for now is that he is the physical embodiment of Sarah’s adult responsibility. Adult responsibilities include looking after other people other than yourself, according to Piaget’s developmental stages of childhood to adolescence, one vital quality of  preoperational staged children is egocentrism (only thinking about oneself), and playing make believe. As you grow older, you begin to think of people other than yourself and not be as grounded in fantasy as opposed to reality. These are two qualities Sarah, despite being past the preoperational stage (which according to Piaget occurs in children from ages two to seven), has yet to possess. She does not want to be a role model and take time doing something she doesn’t want to do, or think about looking after another human being other than herself. Toby has even been given Sarah’s stuffed bear, Lancelot and when she discovers that, she is furious! It is Toby is physical evidence that her mother is now out of her reach and that she has to face the bland reality of adulthood rather than the wide-eyed dreams of childhood. Considering that Sarah was an only child until he was born, he is a rude wakeup call out of her bubble. Not only does she now have to look after another human being, he is also a baby. He has more of a childhood to go than she has left. He can play with toys and pretend if he wants to, while she is no longer allowed to do what she loves.

                Her jealousy boils into outright hatred. She yells at Toby “I hate you!” When Toby won’t stop crying, she tells him a story; clearly it is a similar but not exact re-telling of the story from her book, “Labyrinth.” In the story, Sarah is the beautiful heroine she wants to be, and she makes her stepmother an evil stepmother who forces her to be a “slave” to the “spoiled child.” In the story, she is so beautiful that the king of the goblins falls in love with her, giving Sarah her desired male attention- she has a beauty so strong that even adult men are drawn to her! But the goblin king in the story offers to take the baby away to his kingdom so she could be “free.” The only issue is that the baby will eventually turn into a goblin once brought there. Despite this, Sarah, now acting it out, summons the goblin king to take the baby away. But it is when she accidentally uses the correct summoning words “I wish” (“I wish the goblins would come and take you away…right now”) does it come true.

                               

           

                And BAM! Goodbye Toby! Clutter, clutter, dramatic music, noise, scuttering, evil cackling and POW! Magic, magic,  magic, window breaks through, dramatic wind and shadows!

One theme that pops up throughout the film is the importance of choice. Sarah must now deal with the consequences of her wish being fulfilled, since she chose to say the words (granted, she did not know they would really come true). Her wish is for the goblin king to fall in love with her so that he and the goblins could take the baby away. Now that the baby is gone, Sarah realizes how selfish her wish was; she has sent a defenseless infant out into an unknown environment to eventually turn into a monster. The goblin king, named Jareth, played by famed British rock singer David Bowie, appears before her and refuses to give the baby back despite her pleading. What is remarkable is that he is the exact same man in the photos with Sarah’s mother (Hello Elektra complex!). He is made to appear “completely alluring, completely a character that draws people in and that people are infatuated with,” like “a romantic hero” and “a young girl’s dream of a pop star”, glitter, leather, and all. He is the fulfillment of her wish for male attention similar to her mother.

But what kind of love does he have to offer her? Well, not only does he refuse to return the baby at the request of his beloved, but he demeans her as a child, telling her to go back and “play with your toys and costumes.” He offers her a magic crystal ball “that will show you your dreams” instead of returning Toby, but Sarah turns down the gift. 

We will see later what those dreams are, but for now, I can say that they consist of pretty dresses and fairy tale balls and romance. When Sarah rejects it, he turns it into a snake and throws it at her, with a warning of “Don’t defy me.” Already, we know that although he gives her romantic male attention, he sees her as a helpless child who needs to be taught submission and punished for doing otherwise.

The magic crystal ball he holds (insert masturbation joke) upholds traditional gender roles in the form of what he claims to be her “dreams.” When Sarah says no to that, he turns it into a snake in order to scare her into doing what he wants. Immediately, we get two images from that animal. One is a phallic symbol- and since he throws it at Sarah, he is using the fact that he is male and therefore more powerful than her, the “power –less” female, to threaten and attacks her into obedience. He has twisted her dreams into a form of suppression; something that will harm her into doing what he wants her to do- to stay childlike and helpless instead of accept the simultaneous power and responsibility of adulthood. 

Secondly, the snake quotes the serpent from The Genesis story of the fall of mankind. The devil in the form of a serpent also offered a supposedly round object to a woman claiming that it would give her what she wanted despite her protests that it was not the right thing to do. He is not only connected to masculinity and the superficial glamour of romance, but also the devil, the embodiment of evil.

The last offer he makes Sarah is that if she can solve the Labyrinth in his alternate fantasy world, and reach the castle in goblin city in 13 hours or fewer, than he will give back the baby or else “he will be one of us.”

Sarah hesitantly accepts his challenge, and moves forward with her rescue mission.

But the adventure has only begun.

Sources Cited:

Labyrinth. Dir. Jim Henson. Jim Henson, 1986. DVD.

Smith, A. C. H., Brian Froud, and Jim Henson. Jim Henson's The Labyrinth: The Novelization. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

"Labyrinth (film)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 2006. Web. 21 Jan. 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(film)>.

Cherry, Kendra. "Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development: The 4 Stages." Psychology.about.com. About.com, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2015. <http://psychology.about.com/od/piagetstheory/a/keyconcepts.htm>.

Pippin 2013 Revival Review!

When I first viewed Pippin with Ben Vereen in the DVD of the 1982 Toronto production, I had one giant problem with it that was keeping from absolutely loving this musical; it was dated. Weather it was the hair, the music, or the overall staging, the cobwebs somehow kept me from completely appreciating this wonderful musical.

And then came this revival, and it did just that. I can describe it in just 2 words: circus spectacle. It is easy to have a big Broadway musical that is spectacular in the fact that it shows off how huge the budget is, but here, the spectacle is important, it is part of the story, and it makes the story more recognizable, more modern, and even more powerful. Watching it now and all of the things it does made me feel not just like a 4 year old chewing cotton candy with my jaw open at all the fancy, difficult tricks they were doing without nets and closing my eyes whenever I thought a trick was going to be too dangerous and I was about to watch someone die right before me-which they never do (because they are professionals), but as an adult facing the question of how to spend my adulthood. Yes, you will be amazed, but you will think too.

Most of the cast (except perhaps a couple characters), are trained circus performers and dancers. The choreography mimics the original production and uses the classic Fosse style (supposedly they looked at his original notes!), but this is definitely the most extremely physical show I have seen, and the cast, especially the ensemble, pulls it off perfectly. It is a visual wonder, they perform on aerial swings, they jump through hula hoops, and they bend their bodies in ways you did not know bodies could bend. Most of the numbers have an individual identity; it has its own color, its own tricks and complex choreography and staging. Never once was I bored watching it onstage. As for the sets look, it was incredibly simple (a circus tent as the walls and your average circus stuff), and only had to change the lights or add a few set pieces from the fly space or wings to tell us we were someplace else. For example, there was green lighting and  green bouncy balls to make Bethe’s house and there was also yellow lighting and wooden animal stalls to make Catherine’s farm. The costumes were also useful in communicating character while staying true to the circus and spectacle themes.

The performances were a mixed bag. The strongest were, of course, from the Leading Player, played by Carly Hughes and Berthe played by Priscilla Lopez. Both had strong character development , wonderful singing (and dancing for Hughes part), and were a joy to watch as long as they were onstage. The understudy for Fastrada, Lara Seibert Young was on that night, but she nailed the simple character of Fastrada. She looked like she was having fun, which in turn made it fun to watch her. Plus her phenomenal dancing was a huge advantage to her performance as well. John Dossett as Pippins father, King Charlemagne, was not impressive in singing or acting, but he was able to keep in character and be believable, but too believable to the point where the character of “enormous power” seemed weak. Rachel Bay Jones as Catherine was annoying at first, but her humor and unique take on the character- emphasis placed on her normality and plainness as opposed to the greatness Pippin craves throughout the plot- grew on me, especially her comic timing. Sadly, the weakest link was the central character; Josh Kaufman, the winner of last years “Voice” as Pippin. Despite his naturally good singing voice, he made Pippin more spoiled than sympathetic and gave him no interesting qualities outside of that.

There were new orchestrations, cuts and additions that did a great justice to the show. I will not spoil it for those of you who want to see it without knowing, but let me say this one thing. In the original show, there were a few lines and little scenes that either could be taken uncomfortably or glued the show to its period. Cutting them (except for one line, my favorite from the original “Some men raise flags when they can’t get anything else up!”) except for a few of the more necessary “discomfort” lines and scenes trimmed the show to what it needed. The extra scenes reminded me something about this show; it is hilarious. Pippin has a wonderful, smart, and sometimes bawdy (but not to the point of gross) sense of humor. The best addition was the ending. You can guess at what it is if you listened to the revival soundtrack, but it never the less adds a new dimension and closing thought to the story that in addition to the circus element makes it all the more powerful. It is one of the best endings in Musical Theatre history.

With all of these amazing circus tricks, with all of the people singing while hula hooping or being held upside down from an aerial swing, it is not pulling a Weber. It is not spectacle for the sake of spectacle. The circus represents the “incredible” destiny Pippin seeks. Even when he is faced with the realities of a more  mundane life, there is not a break from the circus tricks because that is him trying to  change  reality to meet his own standards. However, it gets in the way of him being able to accept the happiness of the mundane. Pippin is a show that questions the idea of there being a grand destiny for each person, if an ordinary life makes a person ordinary, and what someone is willing to do in order to be considered great. Whether you are an adult facing your mid-life crisis, a high school student about to enter college and form your adulthood, or a college student questioning whether your major is what you want to do for the rest of your life, than there is something in this show, that  will strike a chord with you. And the chord has never been struck in a way like this.

So overall, Pippin is an exceptional revival. The cobwebs have been swept from it and trimmed and fitted to fit this new, different generation. The simple yet creative sets and costumes clearly communicate character and setting. The main cast may not be at their zenith, but they all perform physically impressive feats. The brilliant circus staging not only makes it look dazzling, but it also makes the main themes and messages of the show all the more relevant. If you missed the production, then by all means, see the National tour when it comes the closest it can to your town. They have magic to do, it is not a false parlor trick- the magic, indeed, is genuine magic.

NBC's Peter Pan Live Review!

   I have mixed feelings about the ABC Live Musicals. (Please take note, I have not seen its Sound of Music). On one hand, they are getting musicals back into mainstream culture, sparkling an interest in musicals into the next generation, and giving families something fun to watch on television together. But on the other hand, from what I have heard about from the Sound of Music live…They can be pretty overblown copies that add “cool” millennial crap.
  Enter Peter Pan Live.
 

  Though I was extremely skeptical at first about it,  it is surprisingly better than I thought. It has its problems, oh yes it does, but there is charm and entertainment, as well as actual effort. There is a pretty decent cast with all of the right acting, singing, and dancing chops. Leave all Heterosexuality you had at the door and enjoy it.
  Allison Williams presents Peter rather than becomes him. I never believed she was Pan, but she had the right look and movements, and her singing voice is surprisingly beautiful and the one moment I believed her was Tinkbell’s almost death. Wendy was also quite “stagey” believable rather than screen believable. If this had been done onstage, it would be considered a better performance, but this is on a screen instead. Depite this, her overdone dreaminess was oddly suitable and good night, her singing, as warbly as it can be, is beautiful. Tiger Lily, though a small character, is also very talented with her dancing and acting (and played by an actual Native American, with people of color playing her Indian tribe, and a Native American cultural expert among the crew to boot!). Celia Keenan-Bolger was a beautiful Mrs. Darling and had one of the most beautiful singing voices I have heard in a long, long time. Christian Borle made a pretty good Mr.Darling/Smee as well (what Peter Pan has Smee so young and muscular?!)
   The ensemble cast is very charming. Though it is extremely noticeable that half of the lost boys are Newsies in both their choreography and lline delivery, it somewhat fits. Yes, you can see that they are far past the age of little boyhood, but just something about them is funny and sweet. They act very much like little boys, and you can leave it up to your own interpretation what it says about young adult men singing about not wanting to grow up and wanting a mother while stroking phallic looking trees.
   

  The dancing is incredible. Since Neverland is a paradise of youth, the choreography grabs this chance and uses all sorts of athletic and acrobatic kicks and flips celebrating that youth and energy. The pirates are hilarious. Every time I see them on screen (onstage?) they crack me up. Alright, time to be honest, I was not a huge fan of Cristopher Walken as Captain Hook. Looking at this performance, not keeping Walken’s persona in Hollywood as the awkward, funny alien man in mind, he was not into it. I guess part of the humor is that he is not into it, but doesn’t really care what you think of him. But, Captain Hook should be a really over-the-top, comic villain. There was so much he could do with it, and although his dancing was right on the money, his weird deliveries and blank face just did not seem right, especially in an ensemble full of over-the-top pirates. I am sorry, I understand that he is considered one of the most “badass” men around, but, watching this one show, I just don’t get it. However, I did enjoy him throughout the last 40 minutes of the show. He was at his least awkard and showed some actual investment in his character. In fact, though the climax drags, it is still a fun climax (props to involving Tiger Lily and Wendy in the fighting too!)
    Neverland itself is unique. Although most interpretations emphasize it as an island, this one makes it look bright, colorful, and downright surreal to emphasize it as a magical place. I don’t think I have ever seen a Neverland look quite like it, with bright pinks and blues. It made Neverland more magical and childlike than other versions, and it works. It is supposed to be this magical, wonderful place where you never grow up or have to face the many pressures and responsibilities of adulthood, and this looks like what it should be rather than some hot, dirty island. 
 

 
   The songs are okay by themselves, but here are well performed. Though there are a few that are just right. There are your more childlike, up tempo songs that are fun and playful, “I’m Flying”, “I Won’t Grow up” and “Wendy.” But what was really done well in this production were the slower, beautiful ballads. Those being “Neverland”, and “Distant Melody”. They were soft, powerful in their own way, and with beautiful melodies, gorgeous singing, and the right amount of emotion, my ears wept happy tears of joy. My only problem with “Distant Melody” is that, although sung exquisitely, it makes less sense for Wendy to sing it as opposed to Peter, since it is made clear she can still remember her home. The whole subplot of the children forgetting about home could have been explained a lot more, but this chance was thrown away.
    Despite this, the writing was highly suitable as an adaption for the televised production. The songs fit right when they needed to, and it added the right balance of fun adventure and quiet wonder, even with the plays original dialogue, which ranges from stiff and awkward to memorable and strangely poetic. The ending of this version, is at first incredibly dark. Most versions end with the boys being adopted and Wendy looking out the window with the promise of Peters return. However, in this version it is expanded. It faces the  reality of growing up, and that once one is grown up, though they will always keep the memory, legends, and wonder of Neverland they can never return. Though, a new generation will be born, and that generation will experience the wonder and adventure until they grow up, and get to visit Neverland and have adventures all over again. 
     Despite the many flaws of this production, the natural charm of the original tale is everywhere, and told with actual effort. As long as people still love the story of Peter Pan, it will be treasured generation after generation. This telling, though it may be temporary and fade with a new movie or book adaption, will be no exception.
    

Oliver! (1968) Film Review

   People of the internet, welcome to Dickensworld!
    Dickensworld is a magical, fascinating place. You will find yourself in England, especially in London, from the period of 1820-1865. Be sure to take note that all the poor people are poor because they have visible rags, dirt all over their face, are super skinny, and have big, puppy dog eyes, cementing every Conservative’s idea of what a poor person looks like. This social commentary will be almost everywhere. It’s filled with interesting characters weather they are pure, sweet angels, eccentrics, or Lucifer incarnate. Oh, and keep an eye out on that one old guy, he is probably your long lost grandfather/dad/uncle/brother/cousin/whatever.
    Dickens is a goldmine for entertainment. So naturally, his works have been adapted into various forms. As for Musical Theatre adaptations, the most famous and done one is Oliver, and this Film adaptation of that show is very well known, and won several Academy Awards, including Best Picture (!). It is also the strongest Musical Theatre piece out of the very small handful, though Oliver! still has its issues.
 

    Let’s begin with the performances. Though the characters are not especially complex, and the performances can be a little theatrical at times (I’m looking at you, Nancy, Dodger, and especialy Bumble), they are for the most part, quite believable and enjoyable. The kids especially seem like actual kids. It would be easy for Oliver to be played off as the Tiny Tim innocent, but he manages to play it like an actual kid and not a complete goody two-shoes angel. In fact, Mark Lester even adds a pinch of brave, almost stupid spunk to the role. His Oliver is just a nice kid who has had many bad things happen to him and just wants not only survival, but happiness. However, the singing dub sounds too pure, too sweet, and too different from the actual Oliver. According to IMDB, Mark Lester was tone deaf so they had someone else do it, the music arranger’s daughter! But they didn't manage to get someone who could sing it with a more believable sound, or even a boy. As a result, the voice is incredibly distracting from the performance.
    The best performer is definitely Bill Sykes. Again, he is a simple character and it would be easy to go really over the top with his character, but Oliver Reed’s performance is more quiet, and menacing. The Director made the wise choice of cutting his song out, so as a result, he remains more mysterious, making him less connected to the audience, and therefore, more threatening. Though some of his lines are said in a strange way (“you avaricious.old.skeleton.”), he manages to pull off such a level of power with his minimalist body movement and delivery that it will make you gasp out loud when Oliver braves up to hit him right in the face. In fact, you think it’s a miracle he does not strangle Oliver and just intends to spank him! As for Fagin, it can be hard to play this character. Since he is a Jewish person (in fact, the original book refers to him as “The Jew” way more than “Fagin”) and it can be easy (especially with some of the musical choices surrounding him) to make him an uncomfortable stereotype. But Ron Moody makes Fagin likable and they even give him a few more rounded characteristics, a sense of humor, an entertaining physicality, and a constant internal conflict so, in song of course, he can justify his own actions. They make him a likable and important character. He is less of a “villain” and more of a comic supporting character whose worst crime is some thievery and mischief and may just so happen to be Jewish.
    The film is aware that it is a film and takes advantage of it. The size and scale is huge. London is huge. You will be amazed at the films scope. It is aware not only of the musical, but of the original book and makes the needed cuts and extra bits necessary. So we see they trail, but no over complicated sub plots or dopey eyed, perfect ingénues. This makes sense considering that London at this period was the biggest city in the world, and that our hopeful protagonist makes his way there to be plunged into this ocean of pure life and stand in awe of the amount of life in this historically large city. The Camera choices were all quite adequate to the needs of each scene as well. Though it wasn't as good or groundbreaking as it was in other film musicals like Cabaret, it is pretty darn good. It scoop away to show the big dance numbers, it cuts to birds flying to get a sense of Oliver’s thoughts when he sings about being a bird in flight, it zooms in on some detail we have to catch, and so forth. The Director also chooses not to prettify the story in its look or content, and this is a dark story with many dark elements, especially in the second act. In fact, the dark moments are so dark they overpower the more lighthearted moments of the second act. But you can’t make this story too light either, because then that would actually be pretty insulting to the story’s intent. Though it is a classic musical, like Fiddler and West Side Story there is a much appreciated edge.
 

    The dancing is of course, fun to watch, though nothing too groundbreaking, using acrobatic kicks for the young pickpockets; making their thievery a kind of dance during “You've Got to pick a Pocket”, and having them be a pretend carriage during “I’d do Anything.” The production numbers has people on the street run around and do big, grand, sweeping motions. But the music- the music is as catchy as heck. It can range from diddles (“Reviewing the Situation”), to folkish ballads and dances (“Who Will Buy” and “Oom-pah-pah”), to big ensemble numbers (“Consider Yourself”). But though the music and lyrics are childish at points (I’m looking at you, “Oliver”, but at least you introduce our protagonist), it will be in your head forever. But unlike some other catchy songs out there, you won’t mind at all. However, its second most famous song, “As Long as He Needs Me”, is pretty disturbing in context. It is a good song, and it shows off the belt of Shani Wallace’s Nancy very well, but it basically a ballad glorifying staying in an abusive relationship as something brave, noble, and romantic. Maybe if they placed it earlier and not right after Bill Sykes physically slaps Nancy into doing something for him, it would be less uncomfortable, especially if you know how it ends (I won’t spoil this, but here’s a hint: not well. Please don’t show this musical to your eight year old).
 

    There are a good amount of holes in the film, too. Although it adapts well into the format of film, it does not take the advantage to expand or give any more needed information. So as a result, Nancy and Bill’s relationship is one sided. It is the typical one where the female says “Oh, I will love you and follow you to the ends of the world!” and they guy just goes “Whatever.” Also, Nancy is under the “Bring Him Home” syndrome in that she is oddly devoted to Oliver after barely even talking to him. Does he remind her of a relative or a friend? Is she just an insanely caring person? If so, then why isn't she as devoted to the other pickpockets? Additionally, the ending, after one suspenseful climax, is pretty rushed, and, not to spoil anything, there are some predictable Dickenesque tropes in here as well.
    Oliver! is a turkey. There are parts of it that are overcooked, skimpy, too light or even a little too dark, but there are some juicy, enjoyable bites to eat too. It is an interesting, exciting story (which is why it is still being read, staged, and adapted to this day), the characters are memorable and the performances are enjoyable and believable, it is faithful to both the musical and the original book, the dancing is fun, the music is memorable, and though it is a classic, there is a much appreciated darker side. If that is what you like in a film or musical, go check it out and see if for yourself.
   

Halloween Movies Overview!

   Hello darling readers! I have been a-busy, but there is a reason- in my free time, each Halloween season, I sit on my butt and pop in a disk that will bring me the spooks minus the risk And this year, thanks to some recommendations, I have explored new cinema sensations Along with the traditional, spooktacular flicks That will gladly appeal to both dudes and chicks. The rest of the reviews will not be in rhyme, So I will not waste any more of your time, Here was what I thought of these cinematic feats And see which one were tricks, and which ones were treats.
 

     ParaNorman: Now I remember that when I first watched the previews for this movie, among the people around me making Sixth Sense jokes, I was groaning. ‘Oh gah’, I thought, ‘All of the characters seem flat and tied, there’s going to be a bunch of weird jokes that all the kids are going to quote because they play them ten thousand times in the commercials and someone in the movie is going to make some horrible pun about ‘Normalness’ with Normans name in it and uggggg.’ But as it turns out, I was wrong, for the most part. The one thing I got right about it was that most of the characters (except our hero and our main antagonists) are cardboard stereotypes that are so overdone, especially in kids films, that they are downright painful to watch: the bully and the sister especially. They eventually change their ways, in fact, there is a small twist about one character revealed at the very end that I really enjoyed (though, of course, I won’t give it away, if you have seen the film, you know what I’m talking about). The first half is smothered in those clichés, but the second half takes an interesting turn. I can’t give it away, again, but it gives a new light on the themes the movie presents when you thought it was going to say something generic and simplistic. The character design is pretty original and appropriate for each one and the animation is pretty great to watch. You don’t see too much non CGI Animated films nowadays, so whenever one comes around, I have to admire all the effort that goes into them. Final Verdict: please stomach the first half, the second half will apologize for everything.

 
    The Cabin in the Woods: Now whenever I think of Dark Humor, I will think of this film. Oh heavens, where to begin. Like the earlier films, I cannot say too much on purpose. There is a very bizarre, interesting, and funny twist. Although the very beginning plot line is mostly clichéd, the actors pull them off well and the clichés serve a purpose other than just existing. And let’s just say, as weird a twist it is, it is executed perfectly. This is both a satire and love letter to Horror films, like how The Princess Bride was both a satire and love letter to fairy tales. The acting is decent, the cinematography and imagery match everything up, and, plus, that fantastic reveal that is too good to even talk about in front of those who haven’t and will have you either screaming or laughing until your mouth hurts. With that in mind, if you love dark humor, horror movies, or bizarre, weird, funny movies, or all three, by all means, see it!

 
   Hocus Pocus: Now, I am going to be completely honest with you guys. A majority of this movies charm comes from the Nostalgia factor and watching it with people who love this movie to death. I don’t enjoy it as much watching it as an adult alone with no huge fans of the film with me (in fact, I never watched it when I was little because the first scene always terrified the crap out of me). Originally this was going to be a Disney Channel movie and hooooooooooooooo boy, does it show (minus all the risqué jokes about virginity and devil worship). The plot is very predictable, and although there are stakes, and about halfway through the second act, it feels slow and has lost its charm. The biggest reason to watch it are the three witches, and they always look like they are having a ball at doing what they do, and every now and then, they get a good line or joke. Other than the little sister and probably the cat, none of the characters are that interesting to watch. This is a sandwhich, a ham and grilled cheese sandwich. If you like it, fine, but if you don’t, I completely understand why. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go look for a tunnel to hide from the angry mob of fans outside my window ready to destroy me
.

   Coraline: As reported from the smelly, wet darkness of this convenient hiding tunnel, this movie I adore. The characters are wonderful without being tropes. Everyone has a unique look, and personality, along with eccentric good and bad qualities, like real people. The imagery is equally creepy and whimsical when it needs to be, balancing the two elements of the story perfectly. The animation, again, is great to watch. And you find yourself completely captivated. The designs are great to watch, befitting each character to a T. The music is amazing ranging from circus pomp to soft, child llike nonsense syllables, to haunting hums garenteed to send chills up your spine. This is actually one of those rare cases where I prefer the film adaption over the original book, please treat yo’self this Hallows Eve, and GO WATCH IT!

 
   Hotel Translyvania: Now, like ParaNorman, when I first saw the trailers for this, I was skeptical, and again I turned out to only be right to a degree. On one hand, it is full of a celebeties with basic designs playing a five year olds idea of what iconic movie monsters are and telling fart, butt, and anti-Twilight jokes that are garunteed to have kids laughing and adults eye-rolling while having a very dated pop and “tweeny” song at the very end. But on the other hand, each voice actor does a good job and portrays unique, funny characters. There are some jokes that work better than others- I found myself laughing within the first four minutes! What are especially smart are the smaller jokes that find some way of repeating themselves later in the film. There are also some more dramatic moments that, although sometimes rushed too soon to end with having some ridiculous joke right after the reveal at the location of the more dramatic scene, are done well. The animation is wonderful to watch, just like the actors, it is quick and stuffed with comedic timing, you will probably want to freeze frame this bit-by-bit to get all of the humor in the movement, but it’s a ball to watch. Although dated, and a bit too much for the kids, it’s a funny, entertaining film that knows how to balance drama with high-energy comedy, and if you want to, go ahead, and watch!
 HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

The Problem with the Princess Problem

   There are several requirements one must fulfill in order to consider themselves fans of Disney. These may range from simply picking a favorite movie or song to creating a lake of tears whenever a commercial for Disneyworld comes on TV. But lately, in the past ten years, one more requirement has popped up: One must memorize and pick a favorite among the official line of princesses. Ever since it began in the early 1990’s, the Disney Princess Lineup has been the most successful series of merchandise the Disney Company has produced. Walk into any Kroger or Wal-Mart and before you know it, you will see not only toys and clothes but Birthday Cards, School supplies, cups, books and many more products with the faces of either Cinderella, Ariel, or Rapunzel on it. This Cash Cow has and is continuing to milk out millions. And there is a reason. Disney has an understanding of what appeals to young girls and boys (yes, Princess Boys exist, and they have every right to be acknowledged as part of the fandom in this article) about Princesses. But, as you may have heard, there has also been a lot of backlash and criticism. People cry that the slender, big-eyed beauties of Disney are teaching their daughters in particular that the only important thing in the world is to be pretty, do nothing and have material goods-a man included in the package. (Yet no one questions if superheroes are teaching little boys and girls that violence solves all conflicts)  
   Well, it’s not that exactly.
    Don’t get me wrong. There are problems in the lineup. Telling the stories with the focus being on artificial re-tellings of the “love stories” and the tendency to downplay the good qualities of the actual ladies of Disney where the focus is getting a man does not work. Yes, one of the good things about Adulthood that little kids see and can look forward to is romance, but boys media does not emphasize this as much as the ones for girls. The looks of some of the princesses in the product section comparing them to the original films (dare I mention Jasmine and Merida?) are horrible from overabundant lipstick on the lips to lightening of skin tone. It would be nice to see not only princesses of various colors, but also of various sizes and even disabled princesses! Sometimes the critics are right about some princesses being not as progressive or well written most likely because the movies they appear in were produced in times when women’s roles in society were very limited (cough, cough, Aurora).
    And that’s it, those are all the problems I have with the Disney Princess Market.
    I know some people complain because the lineup is full of pink, cute stuff, and sparkles. Grow up. The line is intended for little kids, of course there is going to be ickle cutesy stuff. Let them have all of the cutesy ickle stuff they want. Some people who bring their daughters (and maybe sons) to Disneyland and allow them to experience the "princess makeover" at the Bippiti Bopptiti Boutique are offended at the end when each one, after being made up into a princess, must take a vow to always be kind- hearted and gentle. They take offense because when the kids grow up from Disneyworld and enter Adultworld, being kind-hearted and gentle will not help them with their future career.
    Because when I go to Disneyworld, do you know whats on my mind? The future career of me or my children, duh!
    If the Princess Lineup is so horrible and evil, then how come every single girl (since this problem concerns young girls, mostly. But it could concern boys too) who watches it and enjoys it grows up to be the brainless, makeup buried housewife that some people claim the company is trying to transform young girls into? Because the lineup is more than just pretty girls in pretty dresses getting the man.      The princesses have evolved over time and Disney has been aware of the problems that its princess lineup brought up. Look at the Princess media from 2003 and compare it with the more recent “I am a Princess” video Disney released and you will see they are working to fix this.
   That being said, the girls may remember aesthetic beauty more than plainness. The human brain is wired to prefer and take pleasure in whatever our culture deems as beautiful. But those with fonder memories of princesses when they were little won’t recall that the center-they recall the characters, the films, and the stories. That there was one or more than one they could relate to. Yes, some girls went away with the feeling that they were never as worthy (i.e. pretty) as they (the princesses). But there are other things to take away from them.
   I guess you can look at the Disney Princesses and see a bunch of size .5, 14-21 year old ladies in poofy dresses who are all about finding princes and looking good while doing it. Perhaps we, the audience taking this in, can twist the medium to fit our own meaning and see something very good. Because if you are a size .5, 14-21 year old woman who likes poofy dresses and would like to have a man and would like to appear nice, does this mean you do not matter as a human being? Watch the movies with your brain turned on and see the individual characters they are. Each one teaches a different lesson.
   There is Snow White, who remains a good person despite all of the horrible things that happens to her and even takes on the role of a mother to the dwarves and teaches them about responsibility. Mothers are hard working and responsible women who work constantly and don't get paid for it!
   Cinderella (which was Disneys favorite fairy tale, by the way!) has even worse things happening to her but still remains a good person and as far from bitter as possible and does not do "nothing" the entirety of the movie-she spends the entire movie doing sometihng! She did not really care for winning the prince (at first), she just wanted a night off to enjoy herself and a pretty dress.       
    Although arguably the least progressive of the princesses, Aurora has her good qualities to share. She has one of the best designs and voices out of all the princesses in my opinion. She has shows things that many teenagers and young adults can relate to: the want to rebel, a sense of loneliness, and a desire for romance and meaning relationships. She is kindhearted, playful, gently teasing, and a dreamer. She has an interesting story line of being raised in the woods with fairies kept ignorant of being a princess. Besides, for us women, if you have explored all of your options you have in this world and you decide that what brings you most satisfaction, fulfillment, and happiness is being a stay-at-home wife and mom- then by all means, do so and feel no shame!
   Ariel saves the princes life twice and was the first real proactive princess. She had an interest in the human world long before she met Eric, he being the mere match thrown into the pile of wood setting aflame her desire for legs. She gets out of the house, she explores, she has adventures, and when she wants something, she will go out and get it herself instead of waiting for someone to give it to her.
   Belle is a book nerd who is marches to the beat of her own drum, see’s people for who they are rather than their status, or looks, does NOT have Stockholm Syndrome or Bestiality issues (her relationship with the Beast was based on friendship and then love, not sex), leaves the castle whenever she can and wants to, manages to be kind without being a doormat and doesn't take a hint of crap from anyone and breaks the spell, resolving the movies main conflict.
    Jasmine is the first princess of color. She is a sass machine who also doesn't take crap from anyone and is determined to begin a life of her own and make her own choices despite rigid traditions surrounding her life
 

   I don’t think I need to describe the good points of Mulan (though she is definitely not the only “good” princess for little kids. And just because a girl or woman likes traditional feminine things like make-up, and clothes and is not a “Mulan” does not mean she is not intelligent, courageous, independent, proactive, or any other words that define women as “strong”).
   Pocahontas is not only Native American and the most womanly of the princesses. She is also wise, mature while still being playful, heroic, true to herself and (guess what!) saves the guy.
   The lovely Tiana is not only the first African American Princess, but is also ambitious and extremely hard working. She is determined to get a career doing what she loves even though she lives in a time where it was considered normal that African Americans, and women were treated with a lot of disrespect. And if that means working night and day to her bones, she will do it. Even when she is turned into a frog, that still does not stop her from attaining her goal. She also knocks sense into her prince, and defeats the bad guy.
 
    Merida is very similar to Mulan, takes a proactive role but is still human and flawed. She is filled with faults instead of being a perfect “badass” female, learns to fix her mistakes and learns how to use peace and logic as a future ruler.
 
  Rapunzel is an artist who has been taught all of her life she was weak and helpless. Her story arc is about gaining confidence in herself and learning to see herself as strong. She learns how to live her own life and gains independence in addition to being quirky, funny, and sweet.  '
   Anna is a klutz who loves with all her heart, goes out and gets stuff done, while still being very much a real teenage girl. She is also funny and friendly.
 
   Elsa is an introvert who we actually see get to be crowned queen (without marrying!). She felt that her powers were something to be ashamed of, but learns to love herself and use them as a force for good in the world.
 
   This is what the intelligent area of the Disney Princess fan base sees. Or at least how I see them. But if you watch the movies and see any one of them who are not Mulan, Merida, Anna, or Elsa as wimpy Damsels and you cannot be convinced otherwise, that’s okay too. When you talk to little girls (or boys) who love Disney Princesses about them, they might mention beauty or clothes, but they also will mention character and stories. They identify with one or more favorites. More often, their diverse messages overpower the subtext of “you need a man and a killer body with the perfect dress in order to feel whole.” So let the Disney line produce as many “Prince and Me on our Wedding Day” stickers and coloring books as it can publish. Let them look at the Princesses, but allow the people who they are targeting their products to acknowledge not only the outer beauty of the women shown, but the inner. And if those kids think the only thing good about the princesses are that they are pretty and wish they were like them, thinking that physical aesthetics equals a person’s worth, then it’s time to have a talk.

Musical Reveiw- The Book Of Mormon (1st National Tour)

    Let’s face the truth. Religion is a touchy subject. So touchy, that dare sort of medium discusses or uses it, there will be hate letters and hate mail streaming through the creators mailboxes and computers. Even Godspell as harmless as it seemed was criticized for portraying Jesus as a clown. So what happens when Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the writers of a notoriously offensive, but surprisingly thoughtful and extremely well-written cartoon series make a musical discussing religion, using The Church of Latter Day Saints as its focus?
    One freaking good time, that’s what happens.
    I have seen The Book of Mormon tour as it came to the city nearest to me. I can state, without a doubt, it is the funniest musical I have ever seen, so far. Do the laughs come from jokes that are more than a bit crude? Yes, you bet. But to quote Transformers, there is more to this show than meets the eye. The 2011 Tony Award for Best Musical was not carelessly given here. Any show under the right director, cast, and crew can flourish in its own way. But it is ultimately up to the writer to make something dazzling and memorable.
   This particular tour, directed by both Casey Nicholaw and Trey Parker fulfills this standard and more. Each member of the cast holds the ability to create their own unique character and immerse themselves in their interpretation. If that interpretation appears to be one-sided at first, as the show goes on, each major character has their own complexity and uniqueness. Mark Evan’s Elder Price at first is played too much like a straight, classically voice trained, pretty boy to carry the weight of the shows comedy that lies in its center. But there is a great irony in this steel faced beauty. His character is supposed to be the perfect, golden Mormon boy. So when he speaks and sings these ridiculous things with a calm enthusiasm, his characterization becomes more fitting. The nerdy sidekick-turned-hero, Elder Cunningham played by Christopher John O’Neil is Beauty and The Beasts Lefou incarnate. He made strong physical choices, and was able to be annoying but also likeable and sympathetic. Alexandra Ncube’s performance as Nabulubgi was quite believable but when she sang the reprise of Hasa Diga Eebowai after Elder Cunningham’s betrayal of her, not a single heart in the house was left unbroken.
   The first of the two strongest players in this touring cast is Grey Henson. His Elder Mckinely is a Mormon Missionary who is so gay that it is a miracle rainbows and hearts don’t shoot off from the tips of his toenails yet is forced to suppress it due to his duty to his religion and to gladly does so (or so it seems). His comedy, dancing, and especially his physicality-moving, standing, gestures-were a perfect bullseye. Corey Jones biography is full of very serious classical plays, so naturally he was able to pull off General Butt-Fucking Naked-yes, that is his name- as the intimidating Antagonist, but he definitely adds a swirl of humor to the role as well.
   Even the set was amazing to watch and effectively used. From the outline of the stage mimicking the Mormon Tabernacle to the huts of the village to the small missionary center, the shows life was recreated in creative and believable ways via the set. But it was not too huge and blocky that getting them out of the way for the next scene seemed too much of a challenge. You know a show has to be good when I am praising the set changes.
  But enough wasting time on set changes-the musical numbers and comedy, as stated before, are the heart and soul of The Book of Mormon. It’s loaded with fun, catchy music and a lot of cool choreography-ranging from the perky tapping of the Mormons to the flexible, leveled Modern of the African Villagers. Music and Dance is just plain fun. Everyone at this point knows about the cheerful opening number “Hello” and the big shocker song “Hasa Diga Eebowai” the shows two funniest numbers are “Turn it off” and especially “Spooky Mormon Hell Dream.” Although the staging is  a joy to watch, the fastest and funniest staging is during these two key songs and the talents of the people behind it are the most shown off. The cleverness of the choreography, the actor’s talent, and the writings humor all combined with two hilarious songs-one about emotional suppression and the other about purgatorial guilt dreams- are a feast for the eyes and ears. There was more to listen to and especially watch for than was possible.
  The Book of Mormon is quite close to a perfect Musical Comedy, but not exactly on the mark. Reading the beginning of this review and given the shows reputation, you can probably guess why. The Musical not only has a crude sense of humor, but to add to its danger, it is also about religion. Jesus at one point appears and bursts out the word “dick”, the song. “Baptize Me” is extremely uncomfortable, maybe even more uncomfortable than "Hasa." Brutal truths questioning the Mormon faith are spoken, and there are f-bombs aplenty. Any Audience member walking into the show and not knowing it was written by the South Park guys are bound to be startled.
   But in my opinion, the bawdiness serves for a larger reason than just two writer’s trademark.
   The Mormons themselves have grown up with an idealized vision of how the world should be-as symbolized by Orlando and even the mentioning of Disney’s The Lion King upon learning the mission location is in Africa. They know that this world could be turned into their own paradise if they have faith and obey the requirements for all Mormons-including Missionary work. They push off any distractions and religiously inappropriate thoughts and actions into the appropriate. Note that the Mormons, for example, take great lengths not to swear (“That’s Bullpoop.” “O.M.Gosh”). They also have unrealistic expectations for the rest of the world and its function as well (“You mission location is France!” “France! Land of Pastries and turtlenecks!”). The Vulgarity, first spewed from the Africans they attempt to convert to the church, represents this brutal reality. Putting every ounce on religion as a cure-all for each problem they face turns out to be unwise, especially when there are plenty of very frightening and very real dangers about the world as well as more practical needs to be fixed or even worse downright ignoring or denying it, the Mormon Missionaries don’t bring food or medicine to the ill, starving village, they are just concerned about increasing their numbers!
  The Book of Mormon is a loss of innocence and growing up story. Our Main Missionaries must come to terms with a world crueler than what their religion prepared them for and adapt while still keeping faith in their bizarre beliefs.
   Is this interpretation right? Is this message what the writers were going for? Perhaps, but also perhaps not. After all, any piece of art-be it Van Gogh to Stanley Kubrick to The Beatles- is ultimately up to the audience for interpretation.
  The Book of Mormon is definitely not for the squeamish and those fonder of soap-laden mouths as a punishment for even saying “OMG.” But if you are like me and you can stomach the South Park styled vulgarity, you will behold an all-you-can-eat buffet of hilarity with a smart brain and a big heart. It is a beyond wonderful show, but only if you are ready for it.