Monsters University (Dan Scanlon, 2013)

"I've been waiting for this my whole life! I'm gonna be a scarer!"

Introduction

Despite the critical success of Toy Story 3 - Oscar nominated and widely considered the closing chapter of a flawless trilogy - the release of Cars 2 proved that not everything Pixar touched turns to gold. Monsters Inc. was the fourth film in the Pixar canon and was the first film released in the new Millennium, in 2001. Can a series whereby the original is 12 years old continue? Is Monsters University as profound and poetic as Toy Story 3 or is it as hollow and thematically-stunted as Cars 2? Mike and Sully clearly have something to prove...

Hardwork

Clearly, the Monsters of Monsters Inc. are ideal for a series - loveable, colourful (akin to Cars, ripe for toy-manufacturing...) and set within a world that has comedy fed into its foundations as 'scares' are merely the day-to-day job and us humans are oblivious to this alternate world. How frustrating it was to end this set-up in Monsters Inc. as Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) realise that laughter is more powerful than scares - and the fate of Monsters Inc. is changed irreversibly.

Directed by Dan Scanlon, this is his first feature at Pixar after working in the Art Department for Cars and, rightfully, he takes us back in time. Monstropolis still creates energy through scaring and we are shown the academic route necessary to become an elite "scarer" as Mike joins Monsters University and meets Sully for the first time - a world whereby Sully, the son of a historic monster, is laid-back, lazy and selfish. Many things has to change to join the dots between Monsters University and Monsters Inc. including Mike and Sully joining the company, Sully changing his carefree attitude and Mike - who has obsessed and dreamed about working on The Scare Floor since childhood - altering his passion and choosing to be a sidekick to the mighty James P. Sullivan.

But, they connect together well, offering us a story from Mike's perspective primarily. He rallies the troops of the nerdy Oozma Kappa fraternity and completes in the Universities "Scare Games" to prove how scary he truly is... 

Monsters Got Talent

In a range of quirky and vibrant set-pieces, akin to reality TV shows such as The Voice, Mike, Sully and the Oozma Kappa's prove how scary they are. Running through a gauntlet as pink-spikey things swell up the body-parts they touch, silent-library sneaking and a "scare-off" competition as each team member scares robot-kids add pace and fun 'quests' for our characters to complete. They highlight how versatile the universe of these monsters truly is - and so, when we fall into "reality" in the final act the tone shifts and we realise how dark and scary our world is in comparison.

This really is the films strength as Monsters Inc. hints at the idea that many of things we fear are not scary at all while Monsters University clarifies how the true fear may be the world we live in - as Mike and Sully live within a playful world of fantastical games and comedic creatures. This final act, in terms of pace, seems slower and therefore acts more of an extension to the core narrative - but the shift in tone and connection to reality is worthwhile and offers an interesting theme to sneak through.

Monsters University is thoroughly enjoyable and it establishes a set of characters that we want to see more of - but it unfortunately ends with very little scope for a further story (Maybe "Monsters Pre-School"?). Though we have devilishly funny moments (Steve Buscemi's 'Randall' is absolutely hilarious) there seems to be an unclear message to the story we're told. Children will believe Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren's) is the villain of the film - but she's not evil and is merely a strict disciplinarian. Indeed, the true villain is Mike himself as he ignores how unscary he actually is and, through all the games and action, this is where the tension lies. In this theme, and in how it is resolved, it is heart-breaking and troubling to imagine children taking it too seriously.

Pixar's greatest strength was the morals and sentiments that were embedded in the stories - ideas that appealed to adults moreso than children; Wall-E and social-change; Cars and industrialisation; The Incredibles and diversity. Monsters University has no such sentiment, and it is this that is the films greatest loss.

Orignally written/published on Flickering Myth on June 21st 2013

A-Z #16: Armageddon

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a buck each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and justifying why I own the films...

#16 - Armageddon 

Why did I buy it?

Now this gets tough. I bought it partly because I liked it a little ... but moreso because, at the time, it was a sweet special edition. This is not such a big factor anymore. I remember Armageddon being one of the first films out on DVD and, more importantly, it was released months before anyone could get it on video. In hindsight, not the best purchase.

Why do I still own it?

A combination of things. Firstly, I always worry that my film collection is elitest - ignoring the big-budget blockbusters and this is an example of a blockbuster that I appreciated and hold in my collection... with some small quantity of pride (not much). Secondly, Andrew Collins of the Radio Times, back in 2006, put together a list of 25 film all film buffs should have watched. I recall the 9-hour holocaust film Shoah was on the list alongside some more dubious films... one of which was Armageddon. The list was choosing the prime examples of cinema and Armageddon is an example of ridiulous, pro-America, completely-unrealistic but completely high budget blockbuster filmmaking ... that succeeded. It is definately a film that is close to being sold on... but those two points keep it hangin' on.

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

Fargo (Joel Coen, 1996)

"And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it"

Introduction

This was the 'mock-simon-for-having-not-watched-it' film for a long, long time. If you have just listened to the 'Bourne's Brain Baffler' on the podcast page, then you'll know that it was only very recently that I have watched it. Anyone who found I had not seen this would go crazy "You haven't seen this! thats madness!". I could wax-lyrical about No Country for Old Men or The Big Lebowski but Fargo - oh no, that was a crime to have not seen. Well, in the words of that fella' from Gone in Sixty Seconds: "Now you've gone and done it [Raines]". And I have. I knew the demise of Buscemi prior to the film - but luckily, that is not what the film hangs upon. The entire style is what makes it so unique- the Minnesota style, the nice-attitude. Minnesota-nice.

Analysis/Opinion

William H. Macy begins the story 'setting' up his wife as part of a plot to get some money for a real-estate plan. He is thick as shit, thats for sure. But it is the screw-up that the 'outsiders' make that destroy the 'plan' Macy had in place - Buscemi and Stormare, chatty and mute respectively, don't know Minnesota that well - Stormare having never been before and Buscemi only with a passing interest. This is the set-up and, akin to Hitchcocks finest, this is dark-comedy at its best. Upon kidnapping Macys wife, Stormare and Buscemi laugh heartily as she runs around in the snow with a bag on her head trying to escape. It is that kind-of funny.

So, first off, the entire visual style is part-Coen, part-Deakins who stayed as cinematographer again following two previous efforts with the Coens. While we also have regular collaborator, Carter Burwell, who again provides the string soundtrack - eerie and homely in equal measure. Some shots are almost abstract as entire vistas are covered in snow. One show shows an empty car park, the small marks on the car park forming a geometric pattern. The world is important and Fargo, Brainerd and the locations used in Minnesota are as much a character in Fargo as Sheriff Marge Gunderson, played impeccably by Coen-brothers-wife and regular actress Frances McDormand (In Barton Fink, Blood Simple, Millers Crossing, Raising Arizona... even most recently in Burn after Reading).

This is worth exploring. Her character is only introduced halfway into the film. By the time we see her, Macy has hired the kidnappers, he has spoken to his father-in-law about the deal, the kidnappers have kidnapped Macy's wife in an incredible sequence and, as they drove out of town, the kidnappers not only kill a police officer on their tale but also two civilians who simply happened to pass by when the kidnappers were disposing of the policemans body. Akin to Blood Simple, a murder is never an easy task in a Coen brothers film. Even Gabriel Byrne found how difficult it is to shoot a rat in Millers Crossing. Nevertheless, Frances McDormand's 'Madge' is such a force that as soon as we see her and 'Norm' wake up to the call of a homicide, it is she who is the centre of the story. Everything else turns to dust. Her idiosyncrasies and mannerisms, "yah" simply make every sequence amazing to watch. She notes on the documentary that she can only do 'Madge' when in the wig - which doesn't surprise me. Something so fluid can't be turned on and off - you have to physically become the character.

William H. Macy's lead role is additionally an incredible character - though at the same time, a pathetic man. But thats not the first time we have seen this in a Coen's film. Lets think, pathetic lead men - Barton Fink in Barton Fink, Ray in Blood Simple and most recently Larry Gopnik in A Serious Man. All so self-involved that they don't realise the obvious. Then, another Coen-cliche - the barren landscapes. Rather snowscapes than deserts in No Country for Old Men or the fields that I have seen in the adverts for O Brother, Where Art Thou (yes, I will watch it as soon as possible - next is The Hudsucker Proxy and Raising Arizona...)

Then, as previously mention, the theme of a murder. More precisely, murder-going-wrong after a paid-for-hire killer is hired to do such a job. See Millers Crossing and Blood Simple from the same Coen era. This theme in and of itself comes from the Master of Suspense himself - Hitchcock. It always comes down to Hitchcock. Think Rope or Strangers on a Train ... go further than that to simply murders-gone-wrong and we have Psycho, Frenzy, Dial M for Murder ... the list goes on.

In closing, this is a truly great film. It sure does belong 'up there' with the great Coen brothers films. Not only does it bring together many of the Coen's trademarks - but it does so with the most incredible characters in a place so unique that only Joel and Ethan Coen could bring such a place to life with such interest. I thought the film was great and sorry for not having watched it until now.