100 Things, Week 35: Hansel and Gretel - Witch Hunters
If you looked at the posters for this movie and said, "Wow. I bet that's going to be terrible," I assure you, you were right. If you looked at the posters and said, "Oh man. That looks awesome!" you were also right. You probably knew at first glance if it was the kind of movie you'd enjoy. Me? I love movies that are this kind of terrible. But first, a Real Life status update.
I'm happy to announce that our cats have progressed to the point in the re-introduction program where they're allowed to be in the same room for brief, controlled interactions under constant supervision. Cloud is still a bit skittish, and Sephiroth does not like that he has to wear a harness and leash for this bit (so we can prevent a catastrophe in the event that Cloud decides to run somewhere and Seph's kitty "chase reflexes" kick in), but they're getting calmer bit by tiny bit. ::knock on wood::
Aside from that, my life has just been redirected at writing an original short story for submission to the Glitter and Madness anthology. If the Kickstarter gets funded, this book looks like a riot and a half (even if I don't get in, although of course I hope they love my story and want to publish it). With any luck, I'll be done by the end of the week and will return to my regularly scheduled writing everything else... but this has a steep deadline. And that said, on to the review!
Behind a cut, for spoilers (such as they are).
100 Things Blogging Challenge, Week 35: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (Paramount, 2013).
This movie has, very understandably, gotten horrible reviews from upstanding cinema critics who judge films on the subtlety and intelligence of their scripts, high-brow humor, and general believability. It has no subtlety, although it has a delightful degree of vigor when it's being witty -- critics may have thought there was a lack of the kind of jokes and gags that would have made this a parody, but hoo-boy did this film go all the way with unapologetically playing up it's schlock. There is nothing intelligent or high-brow about the scenario, writing, or execution, and as for believability... If you came to the theater expecting an immersive high-fantasy setting from the movie advertised by Gretel in skin-tight leather pants, sporting a semi-automatic crossbow, and a similarly attired Hansel with his over-clocked shotgun, while I'm sorry that you didn't get the movie you wanted, I cannot accuse the movie of false advertising. This is not high-fantasy that asks you to legitimately suspend disbelief. This is a story that thrives on unreality so insistently prominent from the instant the credits begin that it expects it's audience to throw up its hands and say, "Okay, fine, you win -- have fun." In a way, this movie puts the audience in the position of a sensible person in college whose best friend is the sort who, around two AM, throws on warpaint and a beer hat filled with vodka, and then convinces about a dozen other people to play Capture the Flag on the roof of a rowhouse complex while wearing togas. They walk into the cafeteria the next morning, still half-green and covered in scratches and bruises, whooping despite the hangover and mysteriously not arrested. You ask how they got that way, they explain their Capture the Flag game as you gape in increasing disbelief that you could ever be acquainted with this moron, and as soon as you say, "Why would you do that?! That's stupid!" they answer, "BUT IT WAS AWESOME!" And once you hear the part about Steve taking a flying leap over a chimney, nabbing five people with his marshmallow launcher while yodeling, "There can be only one!" you can't quite deny that you're laughing so hard in your Cheerios, you can't breathe. [This is a general example, not a reference to a specific incident.]
And so, while Rotten Tomatoes has giving this movie a mere 18% approval rating from critics, it's getting a 68% approval rating from viewers, probably because the audience that self-selects for this movie tends to know exactly what it's getting into. And, happily, it has the one critical element that is a Bad Movie's most critical ticket to success: actors who know they're making a Bad Movie and have clearly decided to enjoy the ride. One critic's blurb told me that he thought Jeremy Renner (Hansel) and Gemma Arterton (Gretel) lacked "swashbuckling chemistry", but I officially question his judgment. I found the rapport between the two characters to be an incredible bonus to the film. Their dynamic was appropriately insular for two orphans who've spent the last twenty to thirty years as a trauma-bonded hit squad, unflinchingly offering an unassailable united front against anyone who'd mess with their sibling, coupled with charmingly low-key, half-bantered, half-telepathic communication between themselves. It's clear that Hansel and Gretel can communicate as much to each other with a sarcastic grin as any pair of specialists who've been living in close quarters and perfect sync (even when bickering) for their entire lives. Watching them, I felt like no one had ever been as important to either of them as their sibling, and no one ever would be, and most importantly I got the sense that each trusted the other completely. I loved the fact that this was not a romance-possible relationship, and thus managed to showcase the siblings' interactions in a fairly gender-neutral way. With none of the distraction of the standard romantic tension "plot" between the focal characters (although Hansel has a minor love interest come in from outside, little is made of the issue), there's a lot of opportunity for Renner and Arterton to display an unassuming, vibrant sympatico.
Which is good, because in a movie where your big play for uncertainty and tension in a critical moment is "Hansel has diabetes", you desperately need your actors to sell the movie on an emotional level. Spoiler: Hansel has diabetes. The most predictable, dire form of diabetes I have ever seen in my life, wherein he falls unconscious if he can't get to his insulin within five seconds of his alarm going off. There's not much on which to present an intellectual review in the way this plot is constructed, but the presentation of Hansel's "sugar sickness", inflicted by the amount of candy he was force-fed by the witch in the Gingerbread House in the Grimm-inspired prologue, caught my eye from the get-go. Primarily, I noticed its intentional lack of subtlety. While our heroes meet with the town mayor to discuss the missing children at the center of the plot, a timer goes off on Hansel's wrist. He walks over to a convenient surface, plunks his foot on it, and stabs an enormous needle into his own thigh without embarrassment or explanation. This doesn't happen quietly in the background of the ongoing scene; rather, the thigh and the needle become the foreground object, pointedly blocking out our view of the conversation in the background. Later, we have a similarly visible injection in the market square, this time with a short explanation for those who only noticed, "He needs some kind of shot, which will probably be relevant at some inconvenient time," during the discussion with the mayor. The hysteric laughter rippling through the audience as people started gasping, "Oh my God, Hansel has diabetes! That's so stupidly perfect!" was rivaled only by the moment people saw the "Lost Child" portraits tied to milk bottles. Instead of a plot thread, this is essentially a plot brick, thrown at the audience's heads as if the director is counting on the assembled viewers' ability to predict what's coming.
To me, this speaks to the director's understanding of what he was trying to accomplish. There's a certain genre of movies that always bomb terribly at the box office, thanks to their terribly cheesy scripts and a level of disbelievability that even Oscar-worthy acting from people clearly having the time of their lives can't overcome -- and years later, resurface as "cult hits". Everyone in the audience knows all the lines and when to cheer, in a few cases have produced call-back scripts, and at no point needs to pay attention to what's going on because the substance of the action on the screen is so abundantly clear from previous watchings. A great deal of the fun in watching a cult hit over and over again is the fact that nothing is a surprise. As a viewer, you know exactly what will happen and are prepared to interact with it. I actually enjoyed Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters more when I went back to see it with different friends the next day because of the anticipatory glee when I knew particular moments or lines were coming up. However, the director's up-front style of broadcasting exactly what to expect from the coming moments of the film mimics that feeling in some part even for first-time viewers. The audience, from the limited polling sample that I have access to, is pretty much never surprised by anything that happens in this film, but quite ready to take in the exact fulfillment of their expectations with disbelieving delight. If that was the director's intention, he follows through marvelously, and I tip my hat to him for thinking of a mechanism for presenting his story that is just as unbelievably and terribly stupid but yet successfully executed as regards the target audience as the initial concept of the movie itself. If the director did that by accident, I wish him the same amount of good luck in his future endeavors because he's going to need it. So, of the major criteria to field a successful Bad Movie, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters definitely showcases capable actors who're on the game (and having fun), and it brings a high level of audience engagement to the table. Happily, it also has special effects that are as uncompromisingly stylish as Gretel's boots and Hansel's leather coat.
Yes, there was a lot of blood, and this may be the first time I've ever seen a paper-cutout animation subject to the Kurosawa spurt of high-pressure blood, but there was never so much blood that it overpowered the action with gratuitous, undifferentiable gore. This may be the cleanest hack-and-slash I've ever seen in that respect. And, as a fan of special effects make-up in particular, the parade of "witches" was top-notch technical work. Both the actual prosthetics and the CG transitions are well done, possibly quite good enough that this movie will stand up to rewatching in twenty years when movie technology has passed into a new era. I have never been a fan of the "witches as species" concept that permeates popular culture, in part because it makes no coherent sense ("how did this species come to exist, why is only their female offspring then a witch, how are they supposed to reproduce to begin with, what's with this absolute distinction between Good Witches and Bad Witches as a race issue, and are you actually doing this, because I thought you claimed earlier that a witch was 'a woman who made a pact with the devil', but now you're clearly having Muriel delineate witch-ness as strictly hereditary" are among the questions raised and ignored by this movie alone, setting aside the rest of Hollywood, TV, and print publishing) and in part because witchcraft was (and in some parts of the world, remains) a superstitious, unfounded accusation that has nothing to do with natural religions and instantly destroys lives for individuals and communities. The victims of these accusations have always been human, and it seems wrong to steal the term in order to "sanitize" it into a monster that is specifically an inhuman enemy (sidenote: in sixth grade, I learned that as a child I had been given every kids' book ever written about Salem -- to this day, I don't know why -- after I scared the crap out of a tour guide on a school trip by actually knowing all the answers to his scripted questions, and this experience probably made me extra super-aware of the portrayal of witches as villains in media). However, I understand that, in using the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale, "witch" is a term you can't really replace, and the fairy tale concept is as much an archetype of fear and the unknown as is the Big Bad Wolf. I'll grant that what they did is absolutely what was called for in the setting. And, archetype witches having been required, the varieties of creature make-ups designed were extraordinary enough that I don't have to be a fan of the concept to appreciate that they were doing their best. All parties associated with this terrible idea for a movie did their best, and I say without reservation, "IT WAS AWESOME!"
This entry was originally posted at http://psiten.dreamwidth.org/101907.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
I'm happy to announce that our cats have progressed to the point in the re-introduction program where they're allowed to be in the same room for brief, controlled interactions under constant supervision. Cloud is still a bit skittish, and Sephiroth does not like that he has to wear a harness and leash for this bit (so we can prevent a catastrophe in the event that Cloud decides to run somewhere and Seph's kitty "chase reflexes" kick in), but they're getting calmer bit by tiny bit. ::knock on wood::
Aside from that, my life has just been redirected at writing an original short story for submission to the Glitter and Madness anthology. If the Kickstarter gets funded, this book looks like a riot and a half (even if I don't get in, although of course I hope they love my story and want to publish it). With any luck, I'll be done by the end of the week and will return to my regularly scheduled writing everything else... but this has a steep deadline. And that said, on to the review!
Behind a cut, for spoilers (such as they are).
100 Things Blogging Challenge, Week 35: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (Paramount, 2013).
This movie has, very understandably, gotten horrible reviews from upstanding cinema critics who judge films on the subtlety and intelligence of their scripts, high-brow humor, and general believability. It has no subtlety, although it has a delightful degree of vigor when it's being witty -- critics may have thought there was a lack of the kind of jokes and gags that would have made this a parody, but hoo-boy did this film go all the way with unapologetically playing up it's schlock. There is nothing intelligent or high-brow about the scenario, writing, or execution, and as for believability... If you came to the theater expecting an immersive high-fantasy setting from the movie advertised by Gretel in skin-tight leather pants, sporting a semi-automatic crossbow, and a similarly attired Hansel with his over-clocked shotgun, while I'm sorry that you didn't get the movie you wanted, I cannot accuse the movie of false advertising. This is not high-fantasy that asks you to legitimately suspend disbelief. This is a story that thrives on unreality so insistently prominent from the instant the credits begin that it expects it's audience to throw up its hands and say, "Okay, fine, you win -- have fun." In a way, this movie puts the audience in the position of a sensible person in college whose best friend is the sort who, around two AM, throws on warpaint and a beer hat filled with vodka, and then convinces about a dozen other people to play Capture the Flag on the roof of a rowhouse complex while wearing togas. They walk into the cafeteria the next morning, still half-green and covered in scratches and bruises, whooping despite the hangover and mysteriously not arrested. You ask how they got that way, they explain their Capture the Flag game as you gape in increasing disbelief that you could ever be acquainted with this moron, and as soon as you say, "Why would you do that?! That's stupid!" they answer, "BUT IT WAS AWESOME!" And once you hear the part about Steve taking a flying leap over a chimney, nabbing five people with his marshmallow launcher while yodeling, "There can be only one!" you can't quite deny that you're laughing so hard in your Cheerios, you can't breathe. [This is a general example, not a reference to a specific incident.]
And so, while Rotten Tomatoes has giving this movie a mere 18% approval rating from critics, it's getting a 68% approval rating from viewers, probably because the audience that self-selects for this movie tends to know exactly what it's getting into. And, happily, it has the one critical element that is a Bad Movie's most critical ticket to success: actors who know they're making a Bad Movie and have clearly decided to enjoy the ride. One critic's blurb told me that he thought Jeremy Renner (Hansel) and Gemma Arterton (Gretel) lacked "swashbuckling chemistry", but I officially question his judgment. I found the rapport between the two characters to be an incredible bonus to the film. Their dynamic was appropriately insular for two orphans who've spent the last twenty to thirty years as a trauma-bonded hit squad, unflinchingly offering an unassailable united front against anyone who'd mess with their sibling, coupled with charmingly low-key, half-bantered, half-telepathic communication between themselves. It's clear that Hansel and Gretel can communicate as much to each other with a sarcastic grin as any pair of specialists who've been living in close quarters and perfect sync (even when bickering) for their entire lives. Watching them, I felt like no one had ever been as important to either of them as their sibling, and no one ever would be, and most importantly I got the sense that each trusted the other completely. I loved the fact that this was not a romance-possible relationship, and thus managed to showcase the siblings' interactions in a fairly gender-neutral way. With none of the distraction of the standard romantic tension "plot" between the focal characters (although Hansel has a minor love interest come in from outside, little is made of the issue), there's a lot of opportunity for Renner and Arterton to display an unassuming, vibrant sympatico.
Which is good, because in a movie where your big play for uncertainty and tension in a critical moment is "Hansel has diabetes", you desperately need your actors to sell the movie on an emotional level. Spoiler: Hansel has diabetes. The most predictable, dire form of diabetes I have ever seen in my life, wherein he falls unconscious if he can't get to his insulin within five seconds of his alarm going off. There's not much on which to present an intellectual review in the way this plot is constructed, but the presentation of Hansel's "sugar sickness", inflicted by the amount of candy he was force-fed by the witch in the Gingerbread House in the Grimm-inspired prologue, caught my eye from the get-go. Primarily, I noticed its intentional lack of subtlety. While our heroes meet with the town mayor to discuss the missing children at the center of the plot, a timer goes off on Hansel's wrist. He walks over to a convenient surface, plunks his foot on it, and stabs an enormous needle into his own thigh without embarrassment or explanation. This doesn't happen quietly in the background of the ongoing scene; rather, the thigh and the needle become the foreground object, pointedly blocking out our view of the conversation in the background. Later, we have a similarly visible injection in the market square, this time with a short explanation for those who only noticed, "He needs some kind of shot, which will probably be relevant at some inconvenient time," during the discussion with the mayor. The hysteric laughter rippling through the audience as people started gasping, "Oh my God, Hansel has diabetes! That's so stupidly perfect!" was rivaled only by the moment people saw the "Lost Child" portraits tied to milk bottles. Instead of a plot thread, this is essentially a plot brick, thrown at the audience's heads as if the director is counting on the assembled viewers' ability to predict what's coming.
To me, this speaks to the director's understanding of what he was trying to accomplish. There's a certain genre of movies that always bomb terribly at the box office, thanks to their terribly cheesy scripts and a level of disbelievability that even Oscar-worthy acting from people clearly having the time of their lives can't overcome -- and years later, resurface as "cult hits". Everyone in the audience knows all the lines and when to cheer, in a few cases have produced call-back scripts, and at no point needs to pay attention to what's going on because the substance of the action on the screen is so abundantly clear from previous watchings. A great deal of the fun in watching a cult hit over and over again is the fact that nothing is a surprise. As a viewer, you know exactly what will happen and are prepared to interact with it. I actually enjoyed Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters more when I went back to see it with different friends the next day because of the anticipatory glee when I knew particular moments or lines were coming up. However, the director's up-front style of broadcasting exactly what to expect from the coming moments of the film mimics that feeling in some part even for first-time viewers. The audience, from the limited polling sample that I have access to, is pretty much never surprised by anything that happens in this film, but quite ready to take in the exact fulfillment of their expectations with disbelieving delight. If that was the director's intention, he follows through marvelously, and I tip my hat to him for thinking of a mechanism for presenting his story that is just as unbelievably and terribly stupid but yet successfully executed as regards the target audience as the initial concept of the movie itself. If the director did that by accident, I wish him the same amount of good luck in his future endeavors because he's going to need it. So, of the major criteria to field a successful Bad Movie, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters definitely showcases capable actors who're on the game (and having fun), and it brings a high level of audience engagement to the table. Happily, it also has special effects that are as uncompromisingly stylish as Gretel's boots and Hansel's leather coat.
Yes, there was a lot of blood, and this may be the first time I've ever seen a paper-cutout animation subject to the Kurosawa spurt of high-pressure blood, but there was never so much blood that it overpowered the action with gratuitous, undifferentiable gore. This may be the cleanest hack-and-slash I've ever seen in that respect. And, as a fan of special effects make-up in particular, the parade of "witches" was top-notch technical work. Both the actual prosthetics and the CG transitions are well done, possibly quite good enough that this movie will stand up to rewatching in twenty years when movie technology has passed into a new era. I have never been a fan of the "witches as species" concept that permeates popular culture, in part because it makes no coherent sense ("how did this species come to exist, why is only their female offspring then a witch, how are they supposed to reproduce to begin with, what's with this absolute distinction between Good Witches and Bad Witches as a race issue, and are you actually doing this, because I thought you claimed earlier that a witch was 'a woman who made a pact with the devil', but now you're clearly having Muriel delineate witch-ness as strictly hereditary" are among the questions raised and ignored by this movie alone, setting aside the rest of Hollywood, TV, and print publishing) and in part because witchcraft was (and in some parts of the world, remains) a superstitious, unfounded accusation that has nothing to do with natural religions and instantly destroys lives for individuals and communities. The victims of these accusations have always been human, and it seems wrong to steal the term in order to "sanitize" it into a monster that is specifically an inhuman enemy (sidenote: in sixth grade, I learned that as a child I had been given every kids' book ever written about Salem -- to this day, I don't know why -- after I scared the crap out of a tour guide on a school trip by actually knowing all the answers to his scripted questions, and this experience probably made me extra super-aware of the portrayal of witches as villains in media). However, I understand that, in using the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale, "witch" is a term you can't really replace, and the fairy tale concept is as much an archetype of fear and the unknown as is the Big Bad Wolf. I'll grant that what they did is absolutely what was called for in the setting. And, archetype witches having been required, the varieties of creature make-ups designed were extraordinary enough that I don't have to be a fan of the concept to appreciate that they were doing their best. All parties associated with this terrible idea for a movie did their best, and I say without reservation, "IT WAS AWESOME!"
This entry was originally posted at http://psiten.dreamwidth.org/101907.html. Please comment there using OpenID.