The BFG (2016)

The BFG (2016)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Mark Rylance, Ruby Barnhill, Penelope Wilton, Rebecca Hall, Bill Hader

The BFG is Steven Spielberg’s first official box office flop, which is a rare thing because ever since he kicked off Summer Blockbusters back in 1975 with the creation of Jaws (1975), he’s been on the good side of box office success for most of his career. Even his bad ones make money, just look at the disastrous Indiana Jones sequel, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) or Spielberg’s failed attempt at a war comedy, 1941 (1979) both made their money back even though they stunk. So The BFG (2016) is a landmark movie for Spielberg, but only because its his biggest failure. Yet, did it deserve to fail? Is it a stinker? We’ve seen Spielberg half-ass a movie haven’t we? Just the other day I was watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) and realized how truly lame it actually is. Sure it’s got gee whiz special effects, double the dinosaurs (oh wow, two T-REX’s!) and lot’s of action, but at its core, the tepid script doesn’t even compare to Jurassic Park (1993) in terms of overall quality, there was no meat with those potatoes, dare I say no heart! But we forgive Spielberg because then he turns around and makes another great film and well, we forget all about his last bad one. But is The BFG one of his bad ones? Was Spielberg half-assing it with The BFG? Why did it tank so spectacularly at the box office?

The BFG is all about this little girl called Sophie who resides at an orphanage in London. She likes to stay up late at night reading, organizing the mail and doing all sorts of things while everybody is sound asleep. She’s a night owl. On one of these late nights, she sees a giant walking through the fog filled streets of her sleepy London town. Realizing he’s been seen, the giant snatches Sophie and takes her with him to the “Land of the Giants”. While at first Sophie is scared, she soon befriends the big friendly giant. Together they go on dream catching adventures. Sadly, there are other giants who are bullies and want to eat Sophies and all the little boys and girls in London. Sophie and The BFG must devise a way to stop their cannibal ways. Can Sophie and her Giant find a way to stop them?

The BFG is based on Roald Dahl’s book of the same name. Dahl was also the author behind such children’s classics as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Witches and Matilda, all of which have also been adapted to films. So just to make thinks clear here, this film is based on the book of a beloved author, directed by one of the greatest directors of all time and produced by Disney the most successful movie studio at the moment. So why did it flop? I was curious about this myself, the trailers made the film look magical, and truth be told it is. It’s a fairy tale that involves giants, the origin of dreams and true friendship. It felt like a mix between Peter Pan and  Jack and the Beanstalk. So, with all these good things going for it, why the failure? I guess the only true reason I can think of is that it’s not all that exciting. Sure not every movie has to be action packed. In my book, there’s also space for films that are quieter in nature, films that slow things down, that feel like someone is whispering a story under the covers of your bed in the middle of the night. The problem is that today’s audiences are so jaded, so used to superheroes smashing buildings in half, that when a film comes along about a gentle, friendly giant, an old man who weaves our dreams together, then it’s considered too slow. Then the films target audience tunes out. And it’s true, this is a slow paced film, but it’s my opinion that this is exactly what Spielberg was aiming for, a sleepy sort of fairy tale. So be ready for that kind of film.

What took me by surprise where the themes of the film. I had no idea that this movie was going to be all about belief, faith and God. Oh wait could the letters B.F.G. stand for the words belief, faith and God? Could I be stretching it? I don’t think so, the films themes are fairly obvious. This movie is quite similar to the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe books, they address issues of faith, they push the idea of believing in a magical, eternal being that’s watching over all of us, taking care of us, wishing goodness upon our lives. That this magical being is there even though we can’t see him, that all we have to do is “feel him” in our hearts. That all we have to do is take that magical leap of faith, blindly believing the notion and that if we do, then he will be there when we need him the most, when we are in pain, lonely or sad. Thankfully, Sophie is inquisitive. After all her name is Sophie, an allusion to philosophy which in itself means the search for knowledge which explains why Sophie likes to ask lots of questions to the giant, like how old he is. The giant tells her he’s an eternal, that he’s always existed, the biggest allusion to God in the entire film, which is why there’s no doubt in my  mind the giant in The BFG represents ‘God’.

I’ve always found the idea of God a fascinating one. Every society, every culture has their idea of God and to me that’s fascinating on its own. How no matter what country we are from or what society we grow up in, we all end up thinking that there’s something bigger than us, something more powerful. The idea that there’s an eternal, magical being watching over all of us is a comforting one and I understand why a lot of people choose to believe in it. I personally can’t blindly believe in something I’ve never seen. I can be open to the idea of it, or the possibility, but I can’t say ‘God’ exists because there’s no way of proving it. Which is why it rubs me the wrong way when this type of idea is reinforced, especially in children’s films, as if they’re trying to incept these notions early in childhood.  At one point Sophie jumps of a balcony because she “feels” the giant and “knows” he will be there to rescue her. Of course the giant appears and saves her, but in real life, it would be another story. No magical giant is going to come out of nowhere and save you, in real life you have to save yourself. In real life you jump of a balcony, you’ll end up as a big grease spot on the pavement. The point the movie is trying to make is you have to take that leap of faith and believe in God. You have to believe he’ll be there to save you.  “I do believe in fairies, I do, I do” comes to mind for some reason, yet fairies are a fantasy, same as this movie. The reason I dissect these themes is not because I’m nitpicking, it’s because movies are about us. Same as books or songs, they always have something to say about human nature.

But anyway, theological themes aside, I still managed to enjoy the film because it can be interpreted in other ways as well. Maybe that magical being watching over Sophie represents an adult, your father, your mother, or whoever chooses to take care you and guide you through life. I chose to see the film this way. Sophie is an orphan, and The BFG chooses to bring some goodness into her life, he felt her loneliness and her need and chose to be a friend to her, the father that she never had, a step father of sorts and though step fathers and mothers are often times vilified in films and books, a lot of times they can be more of a father and a mother then the biological one. So that’s another way to see the film. Ultimately, I think this movie was actually rather sweet. Basically, an old man and a little girl find a way to connect, to become friends in spite of generational barriers. They learn to appreciate each other past  generational gaps. The old have a lot to learn from the old, and vice versa, so that’s another level on which the film works.

Technically speaking, the film is amazing, the special effects flawless. The giants look truly gigantic. Spielberg here once again demonstrates his uncanny ability to work with children. Ruby Barnhill does an amazing job here playing Sophie, she comes off as an intelligent child, who likes to read and use her head to come up with solutions for any given situation. The problem with the film is that though Spielberg works great with children and has made some wonderful children’s movies like Hook (1991) and E.T. The Extraterrestrial (1982), I think The BFG is a tough pill for kids to swallow in terms of pacing; many children will undoubtedly find it “boring”. I was watching it in a theater filled with about 10 people and this woman kept telling her boyfriend she wanted to leave because she couldn’t understand what was happening on screen. That she was bored and this was a grown woman! She was pleading to her boyfriend to leave the theater! They did about half way through. I guess your enjoyment of this film will depend on your attention span. If it has a short fuse, you’ll probably walk. If on the other hand you have patience and can take a shorter paced film, you’ll probably stay and enjoy it. 

Rating: 4 out of  5

Behind the Scenes Awesomeness! Jurassic Park Franchise Edition!

Now this is filmmaking! 

Stan Winston, the main man behind the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park

Spielberg, a master at directing children

Jurassic World (2015)

Jurassic World (2015)

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Cast: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson, Irrfan Khan

The concept of an amusement park filled with dinosaurs is an attractive one because, let's be honest, who wouldn’t kill to see living breathing dinosaurs? In the Jurassic Park franchise genetic manipulation and biological tinkering have made it possible for us to see ancient creatures that were once extinct, same as if you were visiting a zoo. Unfortunately, as the last three films have taught us, giant meat eating dinosaurs are not that easy to keep in captivity. This is the fourth film in the beloved Jurassic Park franchise, and it’s only now, after four films and three failed test runs, that the park finally opens its doors to the public. Only now it’s called Jurassic World. Why would anyone want to visit a park where many people have died at the hands of genetically mutated dinosaurs is beyond me, but I guess the idea behind Jurassic World is that people have gotten over the events that occurred in Jurassic Park (1993), The Lost World (1997) and Jurassic Park III (2001). I guess the curiosity of seeing real live dinosaurs is just too much, people just don’t care, they’re going anyway. Chalk it up to confidence in human superiority. Our conquest over the natural world, we’re the kings of the planet and all that. I guess its similar to how people still go on roller coasters rides, even though people have died riding them. Just google the words “roller coaster tragedy” and you’ll see what I mean.  The premise for Jurassic World is that the park has been up and running for some time now, and that seeing a T-Rex or a Velociraptor is now commonplace. What can park owners do to keep the masses entertained?  And how long before the shit hits the fan?

Jurassic Park are a series of films with strong foundations on Michael Crichton’s book about genetic manipulation being conducted in secret islands, unbeknownst to the rest of the world. I remember reading Jurassic Park eons ago, it had an essay that talked all about how these genetic experiments are actually conducted with sheep, we just don’t know it. This gave the whole novel and subsequent film a scary legitimacy; a plausibility that might not have been there otherwise. Suddenly the story had foundations in the real world. Mix that idea with an amusement park gone berserk and you have a winner. Genetic engineering has always been a scary sort of concept; it makes humans seem like gods, playing with life, this is the reason why it’s always been a controversial matter in the real world. To this day, Crichton continues exploring this theme in his post Jurassic Park work, like for example, his 2006 novel entitled ‘Next’, a novel in which he continues to explore genetic research and corporate greed.  Jurassic World explores these ideas via these scientists that splice DNA from different dinosaurs to create entirely new species of dinosaurs. This is how we come about the main baddie in this film, the new dino created solely for Jurassic World, the ‘Indominous Rex’, a mix between a Velociraptor and a bunch of other dinosaurs. 

  

The concept of an amusement park in chaos is nothing new to Crichton, who explored this premise in the film Westworld (1973), a film Crichton himself directed about an amusement park that reproduced the old west, down to having cowboys walking down the streets, cantinas you could visit and horses you could ride. Tourists could come in and live in the old west for a couple of days. Things get crazy when robot cowboys malfunction and start shooting the tourists. As you can see, Crichton has been toying around with these ideas since the 70’s. In fact, Hollywood has used this concept before in films like Jaws 3-D (1983), were a vengeful shark runs amok inside of a Sea World, eating the people on the water rides. So to the seasoned movie buff, this concept is nothing new. What does Jurassic World have to offer that we haven’t seen before? A whole lot as it turns out because we’d never seen this concept played out with dinosaurs! These films strive on that one moment when it’s all about the chaos and the thousands of park goers running for their lives! There’s an awesome moment where Pterodactyls break loose and start snatching up tourists! Chaos indeed!

Of course comparisons to Jurassic Park (1993) are inevitable, so let’s get them out of the way. True there are nods to the original film, which fans will immediately spot. We revisit places from the first film, we see certain recognizable props and vehicles from Spielberg’s original. Some scenes in Jurassic World pay homage to Spielberg’s film, but that’s just director Colin Trevorrow respectfully acknowledging Spielberg’s genius. Thankfully the films offers us original elements as well, it’s not all one big homage like some reviewers are making it out to seem. In terms of the way it was made, well, Spielberg’s Jurassic Park is special in the sense that it mixed practical, physical effects with digital ones. Back in ’93, when Jurassic Park was made, it was the first film that showed the world how far digital effects could go when done right. I remember the first time I saw Jurassic Park in theaters! I was blown away, and yes, why not, I’ll admit it, when the T-Rex first roared, I got goose bumps. It looked so real. A lot of it had to do with the use of amazing puppets built for the film. If you go back and see Jurassic Park (1993) you’ll see, most of the time, the T-Rex is not computer animated, most of the time; it was all done through giant, life size puppets. Fast forward 22 years into the future and filmmaking has drastically changed, today computer animation has completely taken over movie making and so, we don’t see many puppets on this film. Most of the time, the dinosaurs are entirely computer generated. That’s just the way cinema is nowadays, so I guess we just have to accept it and enjoy those few moments when an adventurous filmmaker decides to make things the old fashioned way. Yet, when computer effects are done right they can blow us away and Jurassic World has good computer animation, so in that area, you won’t feel let down. We get top notch computer animation here.   We also get to see dinosaurs we haven’t seen before, like the giant whale dino.  

The film moves at a great pace, it slowly introduces us into the whole world. We get to see how the park works, who runs it. It takes its time to set things up properly, which is something I liked. You feel like you’re watching a real movie as opposed to a movie that’s in a hurry to get to the “good stuff” without setting up things properly first. In my opinion it’s a very well structured film. In fact, if you ask me, I say that that this film is better than The Lost World (1997) in the sense that The Lost World, though entertaining, felt like it was an unnecessary sequel which ran on one simple premise alone, putting the dinosaurs within the context of the city landscape. The third one was also pointless to me. In contrast Jurassic World feels like a natural continuation of the original story line which had everything to do with opening the park to the public, which finally happens here. I loved the way they portrayed the fully functional park, you’ll wish that it existed! Another plus is of course Chris Pratt as Owen, playing the role of what can only be described as a ‘Raptor Whisperer’. Chris Pratt looks like Indiana Jones on this one, it wouldn’t surprise me if he actually ends up wearing the Fedora hat at some point in his career, especially now that he is working with Spielberg. So that’s it ladies and gents. What we got here is a film that doesn’t surpass the original but is better than all previous sequels. All in all, a fun time at the movies.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

Behind the Scenes Awesomeness; Jaws Franchise Edition!