Thursday, August 18, 2016

This Green Dragon is Toast

Pete’s Dragon

Now I am going to be completely honest with you.  I went to see this movie with my family this past weekend.  It was an experience in film watching for sure.  I suppose my experience with this movie even began before that, when I was at Disney’s California Adventure and I went to one of those sneak previews they have of the movie in “4D.”  I can’t possibly imagine what this movie would have been like in that venue but the little snippet that they gave you there was a lot of fun.  It was like any good trailer: lots of editing and splicing together; quick transitions building intensity, and mind blowing sound to suck you in.  It was a lot of fun.  I was excited enough to have my daughter and the rest of my family with us there for the movie.  I thought I was going to sit back, relax and enjoy a nice piece of fluff. 

Obviously this is the perfect transition for a nice big “but.”  But before I get there I want to give some context with the whole experience.  I am sure like many of you, you have experienced some of Disney’s interesting remakes, or re-imaginings of its classic fairy tales.  There has been Cinderella (enjoyed it), Maleficent (very disappointed), the Jungle Book (not as whimsical as the original but fun) as well as upcoming features like Beauty and the Beast.  But it’s hard to view the new versions without having some thought in your head about the original.

The original, while definitely Disney, was produced in the 1970's post Disney himself.  And while it might have been missing some of his wit and charm, it was unmistakably a Disney production.  Lost boys in need of help, fun musical numbers, and crazy villains were hallmarks of his films, and this was no different.  Pete was an orphaned boy controlled by a ruthless family and who had been adopted by a magical dragon to be able to help get him into a better family and find his own place in the world.  At which point Elliot, the dragon, would no longer be needed.  There was magic.  There was silliness.  There was warmth.  And ultimately it was about finding family.

Which brings us to the new film.  How can we look at the new film without thinking about the old film.  Obviously there is still Pete, an orphaned boy.  And there is still a dragon who is protecting him named Elliot.  And as my daughter put it so bluntly, that is where the similarities end.  I am not sure that it is completely true that the similarities ended there, but I will get into that a little later on.  First let’s begin with the setup.  There is a boy who seems to be orphaned in the Pacific Northwest sometime in the 1970's.  I am only guessing this because of the costumes that the parents seem to be wearing at the start of the film.  They were dressed up in either 70's or early 80's clothing.  And in trying to avoid a deer they end up flailing off the road and the parents do not survive the accident, but Pete does; and along with a book about a lost dog named Elliot, he scampers off into the woods to avoid scary noises that he hears.  Along comes Elliot the dragon to the rescue, protecting him from the nasty wolves that are in the area (wolves are a hallmark of Disney film making for sure).  And from there he spends the next 6 years on a series of adventures of fun and fancy free in the wilderness, that is, until he runs into a girl.

This girl is part of a blended family with a woman who is a forest ranger and environmental activist, and a nice but gullible guy who is torn between supporting his anti-environmental brother, and the woman who is in love with all things trees.  Finally there is the old codger, played by a "barely looks like he got out of bed to play this role" Robert Redford.  If I am trying to map this onto the original I am not sure that Mickey Rooney’s zany drunk maps perfectly onto the Robert Redford loony dad.  But that is another attempt to try to match character for character. 

Unfortunately I think where they stop matching characters is where Pete’s Dragon loses some of its heart.  They do have the crazy brother trying to catch the dragon and use it for his own profit.  But this character loses something in the fact that he isn’t necessarily evil.  He still has some attachment to his brother, which you can tell by the end of the film. So he’s not really a catalyst for the action, other than to capture Elliot so that he needs to be freed later.  And his other side messaging is that he is anti-environmental and therefore evil in the film.  Sticking this message in the middle of a kid’s film may work for the kids, but it’s too easy to make him out to be the evil-ugly-bad guy.  And it doesn't ring true to make him out to be the heavy when his character has too many mixed notes.  Maybe they were trying to show that humans aren’t perfectly anything.  But somehow I think this weakens the story.  

While Jim Dale may have been ridiculous in the original, he worked perfectly as the evil manipulator trying to take advantage of everyone, and Elliot is his ticket to money.  Karl Urban is not purely evil, and definitely not a foil for the dragon Elliot trying to manipulate rather than help people.  And he doesn’t work as the family trying to use Pete or people.  This part of the character is too weak as he seems to still have a soft spot for family.  And it doesn’t seem to impact Pete at all, except maybe that Pete is actually related to him in the end.

Finally I think the unfortunate part of Pete’s Dragon is in the mixed up relationship with Elliot.  The beauty of him being seemingly imaginary and yet not in the first one is that he truly is Pete’s guardian angel.  He is there to get him through his rough times and seeing him into something better.  But when Pete is separated from Elliot in this movie, we don’t feel the accomplishment of Elliot, or the need for him to help other lost souls.  What we see is loss.  Elliot is essentially Pete’s father figure for all of those years and now the story is just taking Pete away from Elliot.  Maybe it’s not an abandonment in the classic sense.  But society seems to be ripping apart a family, albeit an unnatural one.  Society itself feels evil.  Even the welcoming family for Pete, while not necessarily evil, seem to have as their intention taking Pete away from Elliot.  This new family is encroached upon.  And we see Elliot himself mourning the loss.  Even reuniting Pete with Elliot in the end seems to be missing something.


As for the acting, I would say that they did a good job with the animation for Elliot.  And Bryce Dallas Howard did a creditable job as the Grace Meachem, the ranger.  Oakes Fegley did an admirable job as the lost boy Pete.  Karl Urban seemed somewhat miscast in his role as Gavin.  It never felt like the movie allowed him to settle into any role.   Whether purely bad guy, or family man, or bumbling buffoon, he never seemed to have his bearings throughout the movie.  And as for Robert Redford as Mr. Meachem, I feel like he slept walked through his role, literally.  Throughout the film it looked like he had bed head and his acting seemed stilted.  It’s like they hired him for the voice over Narration and decided to film him in the movie as a last resort because they needed a silly old guy role to fill.

Despite the beautiful cinematography, and Oakes creditable job as Pete, I am not sure that it is worth the retelling of the original film.  Maybe my bias is to the original, but I feel like the original had more heart and the interactions of the characters seemed to make more sense for the driving of the plot.  Although I will have to say that my daughter did love the film, as did my niece and nephew.  And with so much other poor choices for family movies, it’s an ok weekend matinee film.  Just don’t expect to find any of the original’s heart.

Toast not all the way cooked
Two Stars 

No comments:

Post a Comment