Critiques: Finding Dory and Zootropolis

Everyone who knows me knows that I love Finding Nemo and that I identify with Dory.

They know I’ve been waiting thirteen whole years for this movie (which has been over half my life). When I found out a second one was coming out I was ecstatic. When I learnt it was going to be centred on Dory, I squealed.

There was so much anticipation on my part that I repeated ‘I shall call you squishy and you shall be mine and you shall be my squishy’ a lot.

I wasn’t disappointed when I watched the film.

Thankfully.

Finding Dory quickly surpassed Finding Nemo as my favourite film of all time ever. It kept me laughing and all the characters were full and detailed. I didn’t like that the seals were mean to Gerald, but you can’t have everything.

***SPOILERS***

Zootropolis, which I watched a week after Finding Dory, was mind-blowing. Absolutely fantastic with so many funnies!

It explored racism, discrimination and stereotyping to debunk preconceptions people may have of others just because of the way someone looks or what they are. Equality and acceptance are two of the most important things for so, so this film exploring them was very powerful for me. The dealing with inequality was moving.

            I really liked that predators and prey lived together in (for the most part) harmony. It showed that, with intelligence, you can rise above dangerous instincts. As a fantasy writer who has talking animals that coexist, it was really nice for me to see these principles have been used in more things than Narnia.

            However, it did leave me with one question: what did the predators eat? This was neither shown nor explained in the film. (It isn’t central to the plot so I don’t hold it against the film; maybe it could be part of the plot for a sequel that I hope they do?) Maybe the predators ate reptiles, fish, insects, crustaceans, molluscs and birds, because only mammals were shown to have sentience (or shown in the film at all, actually) and eating non-sentient animals may be deemed morally okay.

            Assistant Mayor Bellwether being the actual antagonist was a real big shock for me. Usually I watch or read things and know where things are going. This has been one of few times where I’ve actually been surprised with how events turned out.

Zootropolis instantly surpassed Finding Dory as my favourite film of all time ever.. I’m slightly resentful it surpassed the film I’d been anticipating for most my life but in the end that just shows how amazing it was.

P.s. Finding Dory and Finding Nemo, I still love you loads <3

Punctuation: Sanskrit and Hyphen Loss

As my academic interests are centred mainly on Ancient Indian religious philosophy, being able to read transliterated Sanskrit has been helpful. So here’s a brief guide. With my linguistic interests, this especially interests me.

            A mark above a vowel just means it’s a variation of that sound, so for example ‘nāga’ is pronounced ‘nah-gu’.

Any S with a mark (such as a line above or a dot below) is pronounced as ‘sh’.

If an R has a dot beneath it, it is read as ‘ree’. For example, ‘Rg Veda’ is ‘Rig Veda’.

Thus ‘Krsna’ (dot under each) is ‘Krishna’.

            This is particularly useful because Sanskrit is sometimes written as ‘Samskrt’. Marks on Ms are to be read as N. This is seen in ‘Samkara’ for Shankara, too (a major philosopher).

When two words are hyphenated, they will in time lose the hyphen. An example is ‘today’ which was 'to-day' as late as the early 1900s.

            Two hyphenated words that I use, ‘cross-stitch’ and ‘cliff-face’ are interesting, in that their unhyphenated forms would have three of the same letter in a row (‘crossstich’ and ‘cliffface’). There is no example in the English language where there are three of the same letters in a row.

So what would happen? Would they be left like that? Would one of the three same letters be dropped out naturally? In Germany, the body that regulates words will often announce that specific words have lost a letter for the specific purpose of making sure there are no three of the same letters together in one word.

            I’m interested to see what would happen.

Critiques: Pan's Labyrinth, Big Hero 6, and Maleficent

First off, I finished reading the draft for my then-third-now-fifth novel that I wrote six years ago. Even I was captivated, surprised and moved by my own work. What a lovely confidence boost!

***SPOILERS***

Pan’s Labyrinth was a really interesting film.

Set in Spain with a Greek creature (Pan, a faun) and a Persia creature (fairy*) and other things made up for the film. Usually films stick with one place and its mythology/folklore, but I liked this holistic view.

Pan is a Greek god (a miniscule for ‘god’ because it is a common noun rather than the proper noun) whose name derives from the ancient Arcadian word for ‘panic’. Yet Pan was introduced as him being the earth, the stones, the trees etc., going along the logic ‘pan’ was an ancient Greek word for ‘all’, so this character called Pan is literally everything. It is interesting to wonder if the creators of the film put the two ‘pan’ meanings together out of ignorance or out of wordplay. I think it’s the latter because Pan did cause a lot of panic for Ofelia, the main character.

Even though the film had ‘Labyrinth’ in its title, the labyrinth was neither in the film a lot (in fact it’s seen two times proper, and one glimpse in between) nor all that important to the plot. In this sense, I think it is a poor title for the film. However, the word ‘labyrinth’ does serve to grab people’s attention which does make the name good in a marketing sense.

I saw someone complain that the film should have had a minotaur because minotaurs live in labyrinth. However, I think it was refreshing to not have a minotaur and thus not conform to the expectations of Greek mythology. Besides, both minotaurs and fauns (i.e. Pan) are half-human/half-cloven-hoofed animal (cattle and goat, respectively), which provided a tenuous but strong link to expectation.

I hated the Pale Man. Not the concept: having its eyes in its hands and then holding it up to its face with the unfurling of its hands was fantastic. It’s just the fact that he tore the fairies’ heads off whilst they were still alive! I love fairies so this was a heinous crime that I can’t forgive.

Curiosity was my after feeling. Throughout the film, Ofelia can see all these mythical creatures but everyone else can’t. are these hallucinations? Or is it because Ofelia was a fairy princess so she could see the magic whereas the humans couldn’t? With me always leaning towards fantasy, I prefer to see it as the latter.

Big Hero 6 was a very emotional film for me.

I was invested in Hiro’s older brother Tadashi from the beginning and I was not expecting his death. That hit me quite hard: I admit I almost teared up. This was quite significant because it’s the only time I’ve ever come close to crying at an animated film. (I’ve almost cried at a few live-action films, though I’ve only actually cried for two: Memoirs of a Geisha and Marley & Me.) Thus the makes of Big Hero 6 did a brilliant job.

All the characters were good characters, crafted well with full personalities and characteristics (rather than being ‘good as opposed to morally evil’). Hiro’s aunt is probably my favourite character.

I particularly enjoyed that there was no love story involved and that female and male friends were shown to have non-romantic relationships. This was refreshing. In fact, I found the entire thing refreshing.

Then at the end when Baymax asked, “Are you satisfied with your care?” By the film’s logic, Baymax shuts down whenever it receives ‘Yes’ as the answer of its question. However, Baymax continued to act after it received this command. Then at the end, Hiro found Baymax’s chip in its hand; again, this was a fault with the logic because Baymax couldn’t move or do anything without a chip in it.

However, I forgive this for two reasons. 1: it was heart-wrenching seeing it happen so it was essential for the plot; further, nurses and doctors will sacrifice themselves to save their patients, so this reflected real life, too. 2: Hiro did update and change Baymax significantly throughout the film so perhaps these allowed Baymax greater autonomy and control over his actions? Hiro would have been smart enough to work that out.

            Didn’t realise it was Marvel until the post-creduts scene with Stan Lee. I have no recollection of the film being marketed as Marvel and it was animated, which Marvel Studios don’t really do, so I had no idea it was Marvel until Stan Lee appeared. Pleasant surprise!

Maleficent was an okay film. The animation was great. The script was so-so and could have been done much better. Various concepts were great. For example, true love’s kiss being from a maternal figure. That was a breath of fresh air!

I approved that no one charged into battle. I didn’t approve of the king’s dying coughs. They were not acted well and were clearly fake coughs (obviously they were fake coughs but if the acting was better these coughs would have been presented as realistic). Further, when Aurora was woken by true love’s kiss, her eyes moved across to find Maleficent too soon after waking up.

I was very pleased with the concept that Maleficent was a fairy, yet she had feathered-bird wings like an angel. I wonder if this was a connection to the idea that fairies are fallen angels? Perhaps this reflects Maleficent’s fall and rise in character in the film, as having fallen from grace but still being able to work herself to receive grace? I found this interesting. Another link to Judeo-Christian tradition is that Maleficent was strong enough to create a spell that was unbreakable (which would mean she would have to be omnipotent), yet she didn’t have the strength to break it herself. This is a common paradox brought up by the concept of God being omnipotent.

An aspect that I really enjoyed was that all of Diavold’s transformations were crow-like: the wolf had a beak; the horse’s mane was made of feathers; the muscles of the human’s collarbone were the same shape of that of a crow; and the dragon had a snout that tapered into a pointy beak and it had feathers instead of scales. It provided consistency to Diavold’s character, denoting each transformation as clearly him.

I didn’t watch Sleeping Beauty until about a year and a half after Maleficent, so I didn’t have any expectations of Maleficent that others may have anticipated. As such, when the pink fairy said that the fairies couldn’t fly or use magic, I was confused because it wasn’t explained in Maleficent at all. But when I watched Sleeping Beauty, the reason was clear. I think Maleficent should have explained it rather than assuming that everyone who would watch it would have seen Sleeping Beauty. If it were a sequel, this would be different, but it wasn’t, so it isn’t.

Critiques: Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur and Sanjay’s Super Team

Two Pixar films fell below my expectations in 2015: The Good Dinosaur and Inside Out. The saving grace of 2015 for Pixar was Sanjay’s Super Team.

***SPOILERS***

The Good Dinosaur: the title really didn’t encapsulate what the film was about whatsoever. The only way it related to the film was that the main character was a dinosaur, but under that logic, ‘The Good Human’ would be a legitimate name for almost any other production!

A better name would have been ‘The Storm Provides’. This phrase sums up the film nicely as it was clearly the film’s catchphrase (though thankfully not said to the point of annoyance) yet as a title it wouldn’t give the plot away whatsoever.

The story was acceptable. There was a scene reminiscent of The Lion King when the main story arch kicks off: the main character (a son) sees his father get killed by an oncoming force of nature surging past the cliff-face they stand at. It seemed almost lazy to use the same plot device. Of course, in The Good Dinosaur, it’s caused by the storm which is the driving force in the film, so I think that it was still necessary.

I really like how the t-rex ran like horses, seeing as they were cowboys. That had me giggling for a good ten minutes. I also enjoyed seeing the farm that the dinosaurs had built up at the beginning of the film, seeing how it worked and the challenges it faced. I thought that was particularly clever and well thought out.

I didn’t like that the humans howled. I think they did it because dogs howl and dogs are humans’ best friend, so in this world where the dinosaurs are the most intelligent species and the dinosaur’s best friend is a human, perhaps it was to draw the comparison. But it was sloppily done.

Yet there were many things that could be improved. One little girl half way through the film declared, “There! It’s a happy ending. We can go now!”

I wasn’t the only one bored, apparently.

The film definitely had potential. There were loads of positive aspects which I think could have provided the basis for an exceptionally good film.

The short at the beginning of The Good Dinosaur, Sanjay’s Super Team, is my favourite Pixar short of all time. One of my favourite Pixar things all round, actually. (I place it third, behind Finding Nemo and Finding Dory; I will talk about Finding Dory in a later post.)

The details in the animation were so intricate and pretty. It was fantastic that Disney has done its first Hindu animation. One of my favourite aspects was the father patting the floor at the beginning and the son doing the same at the end, inviting the other to join them to see what’s important to the other. The resolution was sweet and simple. A truly lovely short!

I watched this with a friend in the cinema. They knew it was coming but I had absolutely no idea. Afterwards, my friend said they looked forward to seeing my reaction to this short, as they knew it was there but I had no idea. I love all things Asian and particularly all things Indian so I was rather pleased.

I was very excited about watching Inside Out. I found the idea of depicting depression in a child’s film very intriguing and important. The first segment of the film, where the system of the brain and how it worked were explained, was fascinating and very enjoyable.

Toddlers can experience depression so representing it in a friendly medium, by the personification of the emotions, made the concept accessible. The first step to acceptance is understanding; if a toddler’s peers can understand depression even slightly, it makes life so much more bearable.

It was when the story started that I started to dislike the film. The plot was so weak and dissatisfying. It really wasn’t to my taste at all. I was expecting a lot and it just didn’t deliver, which only made me dislike it more. There’s never been an animation that I’ve actively encouraged people not to watch it.

The Tudors, Reign and the end of Downton Abbey

***Trigger Warning: brief mention of rape in the second indented paragraph.***

Downton Abbey finished so I needed new period dramas.

Finally got round to watching the last episode of Downton Abbey, the Christmas Special. Very sad to see it end (extremely sad that I no longer have the Dowager Countess in my life) but also glad the series won’t be dragged out.

Yes, in the middle of summer, but with my lack of tv and internet connection at uni, both my mother and I had to wait until I was back from uni to watch it. The Christmas Special didn’t have the best storyline though I’ll forgive it because it dealt with wrapping everything up to keep the audience happy and done in a satisfying manner.

When Anna was raped in one of the series, people complained that it shouldn’t have been in the show because Downton was meant to be a nice programme. Yet people seem to forget that the first series had the lady’s maid put out soap on the floor to make Lady Grantham lose her unborn baby ON PURPOSE. I think that should have been a clear warning to viewers that malicious people existed in the Downton universe and that they’d most likely return.

So Downton ended: my older brother was in Poland with his girlfriend; my younger in France with my dad; and my mum and stepdad were in Vienna (seeing all the palaces in their pictures, I am very jealous). So I was booked to dog sit. House to myself with the dogs to cuddle with? Perfection for me.

Searching for period dramas, I came across The Tudors first (I think ‘The Tudor’ would’ve been a far better title). I liked it. Between the politics and intrigue, I reflected and decided Game of Thrones was similar to it.

Better costumes, better crowns, worse hats, better manners, no magic (boo!), no dragons (unforgiveable), less gore (though when it was there it was far more gruesome!), less swearing, less commoners… both had their strengths and weaknesses.

Looking at reviews, one person said the show lacked originality, having two of Henry’s wives divorced and another two beheaded. This had me in hysterics because this individual didn’t seem to realise this show was based on a real person and what really happened to his real wives! Or hopefully they were being sarcastic for reasons of their sanity, but for the sake of my humour I’ll carry on thinking it’s the unrealised option.

Then I came across Reign.

It is such a feel-good programme! Plus there’s that odd enjoyment you get when you recognise an actor from something else you liked: in Reign there were plenty of these. Though the Series 3 cliff-hanger is pure evil (translate: the writers did a successful job of pure genius of a cliff-hanger).

I liked that each episode had its own, clear plot yet there were clear over-arching plots as well. It was odd that the actor who played King Henry pronounced France as ‘Fronz’. It turned out to be a constant source of bewilderment for me. The script wasn’t as good as it could be, housing many stereotypical sayings and expectations of a show with royalty, though there were loads of lines everywhere which were really thought provoking and interesting.

Just my kind of humour, too. Catherine d’Medici is by far my favourite. She was so funny. Being able to stop her execution just to discuss her daughter not liking prawns just demonstrated her awesomeness.

With both of these done, I am now on a search for more period dramas.

Burkini Ban and Secularism

When I saw the High Court of France turnover the Burkini Ban, I was delighted. Burkinis are in no way a sign of radical Islam and they do not go against secularism.

First off, it’s basically a swimsuit. It’s hard to tell the difference between the two.

The burkini doesn’t cover the face, meaning you can identify the individual (thus cancelling out security concerns) and you can see all their facial expressions (thus cancelling out concerns of miscommunication). So as far as the head is concerned, the burkini is like a hijab, and the hijab certainly IS NOT a sign of radical Islam, so how can the burkini be said to be the same? It can’t, thus cancelling out concerns of radical Islam, evidently false concerns that the mayors have cited to put the ban in place.

Basically, the ban was saying, ‘You can cover your body, but as soon as you’re a Muslim woman doing it, it’s not okay.’  This is clearly discrimination.

Secondly, the rule itself didn’t mention the burkini, but said that ‘beachwear must be respectful of good public manners and the principle of secularism.’

As seen above, this ban is discrimination, and discrimination is not respectful of good public manners, so forcing people to not wear burkinis is going against the very rule used to do this same very thing!

Secularism doesn’t ban religious symbols/clothing etc (such as the burkini). Secularism involves the separation of state from religious institutions and that people of ALL religions are equal before the law. The only way the burkini (something religious) is involved with the state is when the mayors make a policy banning the burkini. These mayors are the ones involving the religious with the state. The mayors, by putting these bans in place, are the ones breaching secularism!

Lastly, just a note that the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said the burkini was ‘a political sign of religious proselytising.’ Clearly, the French PM doesn’t understand that following one's beliefs is not the same as proselytising . It’s proselytising when you try and convert someone. Are wearers of burkinis even suggesting people become Muslims? No. Is a crucifix-wearer proselytising for wearing the cross? No. So why the different approach for Islam and its symbols and clothing? This, again, shows discrimination.

Chancellor(s) of Bath Spa Uni

Firstly, world-renowned actor Jeremy Irons is to be the (very first) Chancellor of my university: Bath Spa.

The past two years, I have been the Chancellor of a society (a made up role just for the fun of it). Bath Spa University itself lacked a chancellor, so as I was the only chancellor of Bath Spa, I was *the* Chancellor of Bath Spa. Only by semantics and (somewhat questionable) logic, admittedly, but it made me happy nonetheless.

But now we have Jeremy Irons. The one who played Scar in the Lion King (my second favourite character after Rafiki) and was the only reason the adaptation of Eragon into a film was credible at all. I am beyond excited for this!