Monday, November 15, 2021

REVIEW COLLECTION: Robin Williams


WRITER'S NOTE: The following is a collection of reviews posted on my Instagram account (@be.kerian) throughout the past twelve months. They’ve been organized--and will be posted--by specific categories, in chronological order based on initial (theatrical) release dates, and have been slightly edited. 

The following is a tribute to one of my heroes. 

*** 
In reflecting on the incredible career of the greatly-missed-but-never-forgotten Robin Williams, you have to mention this hysterical 1987 military comedy-drama. Very loosely based on real-life radio DJ Adrian Cronauer, I'll never forget one of my high school mentors summarizing this movie. He politely advised me how serious the story gets, considering its setting during the early years of the Vietnam war, but also how funny Williams is every time he's on as a jockey. His voice certainly electrifies the airwaves, even after all these years. (This one's for you, Dad.) (2/24/2021) 

Williams' performance as an unorthodox prep school English teacher who inspires his students to rise above conventional wisdom and pressuring social norms still holds up remarkably well. But let's be honest, it's also an emotionally painful film to watch, particularly with the expectations parents had on their children during the mid-20th century, not to mention an aching climax. Still, John Keating is the kind of teacher that challenges and encourages us to understand ourselves, as well as recognize those who have influenced us greatly--in education, in family, and in our own unique identities. "O Captain, my captain!" (1/25/2021) 

Awakenings (1990)
A remarkable yet bittersweet true story based on neurologist Oliver Sack's groundbreaking experiments in the mid-20th century, where several patients "awakened" from decades in catatonic states. Robert DeNiro and Robin Williams both give restrained and believable performances as patient and doctor, respectively. (You completely forget it's DeNiro for the film's first half.) Penny Marshall's direction, Steven Zaillian's screenplay, and Randy Newman's score hit the right notes without getting overtly sentimental. A difficult but profound experience. (2/15/2021) 

The movie that first made me aware of the immense talent that was Robin Williams. With a hysterical and touching story about a divorced family man who masquerades as a British nanny to be with his children, Williams thoroughly makes us believe his out-of-work actor Daniel Hillard and his housekeeping alias are two fully-dimensional, distinct, and real people. It's arguably the most convincing performance of an actor in drag since Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, the most unforgettable nanny since Mary Poppins, and a performance Williams will always be remembered and beloved for. (Honestly, you never doubt the stern and endearing titular character for a second.) Like so many of his greatest roles, Williams' improvisational skills and vocal impersonations are on full display ("Yes!"), including an opening animated short directed by the legendary Chuck Jones. (2/2/2021) 

When Williams first signed on to play the Genie in Disney's now-classic Aladdin, he agreed on the condition that his name and character wouldn't be used predominantly in the film's marketing. Unfortunately, when the powers that be (namely, then-CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg) reportedly went back on that promise, Williams had a falling out with the studio. Disney, meanwhile, developed a spinoff T.V. series, starting with the 1994 direct-to-video (and poorly-made) sequel, The Return of Jafar, where Williams was replaced by Homer Simpson voice actor Dan Castellaneta.

Then, when Katzenberg left the studio that same year, newly-appointed head Joe Roth later issued a public apology to Williams, and the actor-comedian make peace with the Mouse House. This second (and final) direct-to-video installment that followed in 1996 is all the better with his involvement, reminding audiences what made the Genie (and the world of Aladdin) so special in the first place. It also helps that the story is a more involving one, as Aladdin and Jasmine ready for their long-awaited wedding while learning that his long-lost father is the king of the notorious Forty Thieves.

But it wouldn't be the last time Williams would shine as the Genie. The character and his voice returned in several education-focused shorts on ABC's Saturday morning programming in the late-1990s, while the actor's subsequent vocal credits included Blue Sky's Robots (2005) and Warner Brothers' Happy Feet franchise (2006, 2011). (2/1/2021) 

Jack (1996)
Some of Williams' films are currently available for streaming on HBO Max, Hulu, and Disney+, like 1999's Bicentennial Man, 1997's Flubber, 1992's Toys, and this 1996 coming-of-age dramedy. In Jack, Williams plays a 10-year-old boy with the body of a 40-year-old man (based on a real but rare condition called progeria, where a person's cells grow faster than normal) as he enters public school for the first time.

The film was savaged by critics, although director Francis Ford Coppola (who has, to be fair, made far more superior films) has defended it, while Williams (who returned to the Walt Disney company after a falling out in the early-1990s regarding Aladdin's marketing) reportedly wouldn't star unless Coppola directed. Agreeably, it's not a great film. It is sentimental and, at times, over the top. Even more sad is its inclusion of sexual references, including a scene of pre-teenage boys looking at pornographic magazines, as well as a strange subplot where single mom Fran Drescher crushes on the grown-up-looking Jack. So, I can't recommend it. Still, nobody but Williams could've brought out his inner child as effectively and fittingly. (Remember his grown-up version of Peter Pan in Hook?) (2/1/2021) 

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

The Films That Stick With Me: (c) B.E. Kerian


Over the past year, several filmmakers have been posting about their own personal favorite movies and/or films that have influenced them in their own careers. I decided to join in the conversation and share some of my own alphabetical picks (beginning numerically). These include titles from around the world, not to mention picks that still hold up remarkably well today. 

WRITER'S NOTE: This was a very hard list to narrow down (it currently stands at ten choices), and it will likely change down the road.

101 Dalmatians (1961)
This is, perhaps, a good place to start. After all, for many of us, the original Disney animated films were some of our first memories of movies. It was either this 1961 classic (in its last theatrical re-release) or Beauty and the Beast that I first remember seeing in theaters as a child. More poignantly, it even helped me through a really difficult period several years back when I was revisiting my old VHS tapes. 

This is a wonderful film with a distinct style of animation (artful, engaging, and well-crafted). It has everything: comedy, romance, adventure, action, mystery, suspense, drama, and music (although, technically, it's not a musical, save for the unforgettable "Cruella DeVil" number). There are even moments of silence (or just dialogue) that are especially effective. Kudos to veteran storyman Bill Peet, who adapting Dodie Smith's original children's book, resulting in one of the best examples of tight-yet-thoroughly-compelling storytelling. It may be a product of the 1960s, but it's arguably the most contemporary of Disney animated classics. And it will always hold a special place in my memory and heart.

All the President's Men (1976)
Full disclosure: I am not a political person by any means; it's never been my thing. That being said, this thoroughly-engrossing thriller (based on the true story of Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward as they investigated and made light of the Watergate scandals of the early-1970s) is a textbook example of effective and important journalism. Even though we know the outcome, screenwriter William Goldman, director Alan J. Paluka, and leads Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford keep us on edge. The line that does it for me: "Just make sure you're right." 

Chariots of Fire (1981)
A sports-related film that isn't really about sports, but about real people and personal obstacles. We're all familiar with the famous theme music by Vangelis. But it's the central true stories of Olympic runners Harold Abrahams (a Jewish university athlete) and Eric Liddell (a Scottish missionary), their differing drives and convictions, and their distinct definitions of winning, losing, and faith, that carry the film. A true winner. 

Fantasia (1940)
Maybe I'm being a little biased by including more than one Disney animated film on here, but whatever. Many would argue for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (which continues to captivate me to this day); some for Pinocchio (a masterpiece in craft, character, and story); others, Bambi or The Lion King (also masterclasses). Even Beauty and the Beast bridges the gap between the theatrical and the cinematic, with one of the best romances--and Disney heroines--to ever grace the screen. To me, Fantasia is the magnum opus of the medium (not just Disney), with various genres and styles (both music and animation) represented and interpreted. It has since influenced generations of animators, and even filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick--and quite possibly MTV. Our favorite: the climactic shot from the "Ave Maria" segment. Awe-inspiring. 

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Frank Capra's perennial holiday classic is like the gift that keeps on giving every year. The timeless story of George Bailey (the role that Jimmy Stewart will always be remembered for), and the significance of one person's life on so many others, remains one of the most life-affirming films ever made. That'a boy, Clarence. 

Man with a Movie Camera (1929)
Soviet filmmaker Dgiva Vertov's bold, experimental mosaic of city life at the turn of the Russian Revolution in the early 20th Century, is one of two films from my college film courses that has since stuck with me. This is brilliant, dynamic freedom in the use of documentary filmmaking, as if art and real-life were imitating or being created from one another. 

Moneyball (2011)
Another beyond-sports movie, dramatizing the Oakland Athletic's unconventional baseball season from 2001-2002, by way of sabermetrics. A true story that challenges and motivates its viewers to persevere through business, through professionalism, and through integrity. Brad Pitt (as general manager Billy Beane) and Jonah Hill (as Yale graduate Peter Brand) knock it out of the park. 

Rear Window (1954)
The other standout selection from my aforementioned college courses. Jimmy Stewart plays a crippled, apartment-bound photojournalist (with Grace Kelly as his beautiful, societal girlfriend) who begins spying on his neighbors and suspects one of them of murder. This is Alfred Hitchcock at his filmmaking best, particularly in his exceptional use of one primary setting (which may or may not have influenced John Hughes when he made The Breakfast Club). Its character arcs and dynamics are top-notch as well. 

Roma (2018)
The last "great" movie I've seen (other than 2019's 1917 and The Farewell, and 2020's Sound of Metal). Writer-director Alfonso Cuaron's deeply personal drama immediately won me over with its epic scope and intimate storytelling. A semiautobiography of the auteur's upbringing in 1970s Mexico City, Cuaron focuses instead on the women who helped him, particularly the indigenous maid (played here by first-time actress Yalitza Aparicio, a revelation) who worked for his middle-class family. This is an incredibly-skilled filmmaker pouring his heart and soul into every frame (shot in beautiful black and white, with an equally immersive sound design), as if we're learning cinema all over again. 

The Wizard of Oz (1939)
And finally, out of the hundreds of millions of films that have ever been made in the history of motion pictures, this is the one, I believe, people (will) remember the most. Unforgettable characters, songs, set pieces, and morals that continue to stand the test of time, thanks to L. Frank Baum's original source material, and of course the immortal performances (headed by the iconic Judy Garland as Dorothy Gale) as they journey down the Yellow Brick Road. 

Wednesday, September 8, 2021

ANIMATION FILMOGRAPHY: Max Fleischer's "Superman" (1941-1942)


We all know the animated classics from Walt Disney. We have fond memories of the Looney Tunes shorts from Chuck Jones, as well as the Saturday-morning comedies from Hanna-Barbara. Many of us (myself included) revere the masterworks of Hayao Miyizaki and Studio Ghibli, while the stop-motion television specials by Rankin-Bass continue to delight us every holiday season. I doubt, however, that many of us--other than the historian or "old school" circles--are as familiar with the legacy of Max Fleischer. Specifically, his influence on superheroes and comic-books adapted for the big screen. 

Known for creating such iconic characters as Betty Boop and Popeye the Sailor Man, Max (along with his brother, Dave, and several fellow artists)'s animation studio is underappreciated for its technological breakthroughs in the medium during the first-half of the 1900s. And while Superman and his mild-mannered alter ego Clark Kent debuted in Action Comics in 1938, he would make his first cinematic appearance not in live-action (that was to come a few years later) but in cartoon form. 

Prior to the first Superman short film debuting in September 26, 1941, cartoons were generally seen as silly and happy-go-lucky (i.e, Disney's "Silly Symphonies"). Fleischer's team went above and beyond by creating serials that were not only action-adventures, but also became benchmarks in human animation. Part of this had to do with a process known as rotoscoping, a decades-old special-effects technique where artists basically trace over live-action footage, frame by frame, to produce realistic movement. The results are lively, bold, exciting, and very cinematic even by today's standards. 

Superman's debut in Action Comics No. 1, June 1938 

Because this was the general public's first visualization of the Man of Steel, these cartoons established various trademarks that have become commonplace in popular culture. The look of the Daily Planet, the city of Metropolis, the character of Lois Lane (who always seems to be putting herself in dangerous situations). Even the "S" logo on Sup's chest is a red-and-black emblem (very different from the red and blue that generally comes to mind). This was also the first time audiences visually saw Superman "fly" (a trait he didn't have in the comics up to that point). 

There were a total of 17 short films--nine made by the Fleischers; the remaining eight by Famous Studios. While not the most thematically heavy stories, these shorts are (and should be) seen as staples of Superman's physical strength, determination, and essentially his character and integrity. Clark Kent even winks at the audience on more than one occasion, letting us in on his little secret. If anything, these serials are basically Clark Kent and Lois Lane risking their lives for newspaper stories (as well as doing the right thing) and Superman saving the day from mad scientists, flying robots, wild animals, and rocket racers. The origins of the planet Krypton (along with Kal-El's backstory) are mentioned for only a few seconds. 

If these cartoons have a downside, it's in their outdated stereotypes of World War II Japanese soldiers and other tribal characters in a few of the Famous Studios serials (i.e., "Japateurs," "Eleventh Hour," "Jungle Drums"). These were products of the 1940s, after all. 

Not only are these shorts notable for popularizing various catchphrases ("Look, up in the sky . . ." or "Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound," or "This looks like a job for Superman!"). They also had a major influence on subsequent filmmakers, animators, and even studios. The tyrannosaurus in "The Arctic Giant" reportedly inspired the creation of Godzilla, by Toho Studios, in the 1950s. The flying machines in "The Mechanical Monsters" are given something of an homage in Miyizaki's 1986 film Castle in the Sky, as well as Kerry Conran's 2004 special-effects feature Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and possibly even Brad Bird's now-revered 1999 animated classic The Iron Giant. Even the look and tone of Batman: The Animated Series from the 1990s--and just about every DC Animation property since--owes a great deal to the Fleischer shorts. 


Monday, August 16, 2021

WRITER'S CUT: "Why Do We Fall?" or, An In-Depth Retrospect of The "Dark Knight" Trilogy

"WRITER'S CUT": A collection of previously-published posts that have been thoroughly reexamined and re-edited by yours truly. (The following piece was originally posted on August 26, 2018.) 

WARNING: I generally try to avoid this with every writing, but because of these films' complex and philosophical underpinnings, a few significant plot spoilers will be discussed.


*** 
When director Christopher Nolan set out to reboot the Batman franchise in the early 2000s, the words "series" or, let alone, "trilogy" were not at the forefront of his mind. Just the origin story that he and co-writer David Goyer were looking to make, not to mention a grittier interpretation eight years after the disappointment that was 1997's Batman & Robin.

From the beginning, Nolan (whose previous credits included the critically-acclaimed thrillers 
Following [1998], Memento [2000], and Insomnia [2002]) and company sought to ground a comic book icon (and his alter ego, Bruce Wayne) in reality. What that required, unlike a majority of the original films from the late-1980s through the 1990s, was real investment in characters, their dilemmas, and their conflicts, thereby investing the audience in the human drama, intensity, and tragedy displayed onscreen. 

"Would you like to see my mask?"
Released in 2005, Batman Begins is essentially a hero's journey, starting out as something akin to an Akira Kurosawa epic. A young Bruce Wayne (played by an incredibly-cast Christian Bale) travels across the world to better understand how the criminal underworld works. "This is a world that you never understand," a mob boss tells him, "and you always fear what you don't understand."

Bruce eventually gets some answers in the form of a vigilante organization known as the League of Shadows, headed by the mysterious Ra's al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) and right-hand man Ducard (Liam Neeson, in a then-radical turn). When Bruce learns that their worldview involves killing the citizens of Gotham City, as well as an apparent lack of empathy, compassion and redemption, he refuses and becomes their enemy. From there, he vows to serve justice instead of revenge, and to do so through the persona of a particular symbol.

"People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy, and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I'm flesh and blood. I could be ignored, I could be destroyed. But as a symbol, I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting."


The origin story of Bruce Wayne had never been expressed to such an extent onscreen, especially for the first-half of this film's nearly-two-and-a-half-hour runtime. And his motivation for doing what he does is clear, from when he witnesses the horrible death of his parents (a tragedy he blames himself for, because of his fears) to his failed attempt to settle the score years later, and when he begins to understand that justice and revenge are not the same thing. The motivations of his allies are apparent as well, including his butler Alfred (Michael Caine), who grows concerned for the billionaire playboy; detective Jim Gordon (a superb, almost unrecognizable Gary Oldman), a beacon among dirty cops; childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), now a determined District Attorney; and Applied Sciences head Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), who supplies Wayne with all the resources he'll need in his mission.

Speaking of resources, the weapons and gadgetry at Bruce's disposal, while perhaps not fully believable, are very plausible. From the military suit to memory cloth used for his cape and an urban assault tank used as the Batmobile, Bruce incorporates this technology into what he fears the most: bats ("It's time my enemies shared my dread"). On the opposite end, one of his new adversaries, Dr. Jonathan Crane (a chilling Cillian Murphy), uses that same element against various people in the form of the masked Scarecrow.

When Bruce returns, the facade he puts on makes one wonder who actually came back: Wayne and his alter ego, or Batman and his alter ego? Even more, it's a question from not only his allies but also the citizens and criminals of Gotham (the latter of whom he almost always tries to get one step ahead of) if the Caped Crusader's motivations are personal or more than that. He's even seen by some as an untrustworthy figure, in terms of taking the law into his own hands. (Remember the 1989 film?)

One of the strengths of Batman Begins is that it stands on its own with an engrossing three-act structure (although one video argues for four acts), while concluding with a sense of continuation and not the conventional sequel bait that plagues so many franchises these days. (Screenwriters Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale did the same thing with Back to the Future in 1985.) In other words, while the film's ending signals potential hope for the restoration of Gotham, there's also the potential for escalation to enter the picture, ending with an infamous calling card and therefore what Wayne's/Batman's actions will potentially cause.

Christian Bale in Batman Begins

"You've changed things, forever."
If Batman Begins is the Act 1 origin story of Bruce Wayne and his fears, moral code, and mission to restore Gotham City, then The Dark Knight (2008) is the Act 2 flip side, showcasing an ultimate adversary's various attempts to push Batman over the edge.

Set one year later, the crime world of Gotham is afraid to meet at night, while Lt. Jim Gordan helps lead the local police and new District Attorney Harvey Dent (also known as the "White Knight") is on a fast track to clean up the streets. This convinces Bruce (who considers Dent "the face of Gotham's bright future") that his days as the Caped Crusader may be coming to an end. In other words, has Gotham City become a better place? Can it become a better place?

And then, the psychopathic villain known only as the Joker unleashes his reign of destruction. While taken for granted at first, things suddenly start getting "serious" as the role of power gets twisted and toyed with. Bruce and Alfred discuss this moral dilemma (along with a story from Alfred's past, mirroring how Batman tries to gain the loyalty and respect of Gotham City) in a scene that perhaps best sums up the theme of the film.

Bruce: "I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight, but this is different. They've crossed the line."
Alfred: "You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man [the Joker] they didn't fully understand. . . . Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. [Even criminals assume that's what the Joker's in it for.] They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

(l-r) Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, and Gary Oldman in The Dark Knight

Penned by Nolan (along with brother Jonathan, and Goyer), The Dark Knight is more of a crime-thriller in the same league as Michael Mann. This is arguably a story of three men against an unstoppable force, and the latter's goal of bringing said men--and eventually everyone else-- down to his level. "To them, you're just a freak, like me," the Joker wheezes. This expands the first film's theme of people taking matters into their own hands, whether out of desperation, vengeance, or without reason. "You got rules," says one mobster, "The Joker, he's got no rules."

The performance that people remember the most here is that of the late Heath Ledger, who received several posthumous accolades including an Oscar. Contrary to Jack Nicholson's iconic, over-the-top interpretation, Ledger's version is diabolical, menacing, nihilistic, and an embodiment of unapologetic evil. But that reason alone (which may have been primarily why the film was initially overhyped and made more than $1 billion at the box-office in the summer of 2008) shouldn't overshadow the film's other compelling and challenging aspects, both from a filmmaking and philosophical standpoint.

The Dark Knight is more ensemble-driven, thought-provoking, and riveting. It may be the deepest, bleakest film based on a comic book character ever made. It's also darker, more violent, haunting, and even palpable, with much emphasis on the Joker's presence and mayhem (an echo of Nicholson's dominance in the 1989 original). The overall intensity proved too much for some viewers--many of whom believed the film should never have been rated PG-13. 

Like Ra's al Ghul in Begins, the Joker sees Batman's moral code as a weakness. Has Batman really made Gotham a better place, or has he only added fuel to the fire? The Joker also believes that the very people Batman is trying to protect will not only turn against him, but will also go as insane as the Clown Prince of Crime himself. Take, for example, the climactic sequence involving the two ferries, which pit two groups of humanity (civilians and lowlifes) against each other with the difficult choice as to who will live and who will die. It's a lot of heft, but in the end it shows "people ready to believe in good." But the Joker's intentions prove much more than that, as it's implied by this point that he's not merely after money or world domination or to beat the so-called "heroes" of the day (or, in this case, night). "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for Gotham's soul in a fist fight with you," he confesses to Batman.

Christian Bale and Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight

This underlying spiritual aspect and philosophical theme carries into the character arc of Harvey Dent, from his idealism as a hopeful District Attorney to his downfall as the villainous Two-Face. Aaron Eckhart's equally-underappreciated performance shows Dent as an ideal of hope ("a hero with a face"), along with his own subtle flaws and ambiguities. Rachel Dawes (played here by Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Holmes), Bruce's childhood friend and the Gotham assistant DA, represents Bruce's (and Dent's) hope for a normal life and a promising future, despite her belief that "the day won't come when [Bruce will] no longer need Batman." Dent also represents two sides of the same coin, much like Batman and the Joker, and he becomes the tragic figure in the end (even menacingly holding a family hostage), echoing Ra's al Ghul's belief that Gotham cannot (nor ever) be saved. The same goes for the misguided notion that no one can be trusted in this gray world. But Dent makes this personal, arguing he can't be saved from what he's become nor from what he's lost.

Bruce Wayne even comes to terms with his own limitations, such as not enduring guilt over people's deaths, the safety of loved ones, the idea of being an outlaw and, perhaps, being more than a hero. Gordon and Dent clearly show their faith in the Caped Crusader, despite what the general public comes to believe. "I was meant to inspire good, not madness, not death," he laments during a moment of sorrow. But for Wayne, he gets moral reasoning not just from Alfred ("Things are always going to get worse before they get better"), but also from Lucius Fox ("This is too much power for one man"), and, in the end, makes the difficult choice that no one else can: taking the blame for Dent's crimes and becoming the hunted so that Gotham can endure, but at the cost of his and Gordon's own ethics. Bale's performance is as imposing and vulnerable as ever.

The score by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard (who collaborated on the previous film) echoes John Williams' score for Jaws, in terms of sensing the villain's presence. The opening crime heist showcases the Joker's unpredictability (and his deceptive mind). This sequence also implies that even criminals used to believe in something. One question that resurfaces later is whether those who represent criminality or misguided power really do deserve to die. (Again, look at the ferry sequence.) Even more fascinating are what each character's actions are motivated by. Batman's are by choice; Dent's are by chance; and the Joker's, without reason. Talk about letting the clown out of the box.

Perhaps no film in recent memory illustrates the flaws and frailties of humanity quite like this one does. The late Roger Ebert described The Dark Knight as "a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy." Many consider it one of the best comic-book movies ever made (if not the greatest), as well as the best of Nolan's Batman films. I can agree, in terms of its grand scale, visceral and operatic thrills, and complex themes revolved around an entire city and not just the titular character. It's a film that intellectual moviegoers--and people who love movies in general--hold in high regard, with all its spiritual, ethical, and political undertones. On the other hand, the film (and this series) is for everybody, need I remind you; because it's ultimately a tragic story, it ends on a perplexing note. Fortunately, the series altogether didn't end there, as a third film (released in 2012) would represent the Third Act resolution, this time in the form of an epic disaster movie.

Anne Hathaway in The Dark Knight Rises 

"There's a storm coming."
The Dark Knight Rises opens eight years after the tragic events of Harvey Dent, when Gordon and the Batman endured Dent's reputation by building a lie to ensure Gotham's survival. Wayne is older but more bruised and battered, while Gordon is guilt-stricken. Gotham has, at least on the surface, become a city that no longer needs the Caped Crusader, having branded him an enemy since. But beneath the facade (or, in this case, the sewers of Gotham, and later cracking ice) lies a secret terrorist organization, led by a masked mercenary known as Bane, that begins to bubble up. The first scene between Gordon and Batman sums up the film and the events to come.

Gordon: "We were in this together. And then you were gone."
Batman: "The Batman wasn't needed anymore. We won."
Gordon: "I started a lie. And now this evil rises, from where we tried to bury it. The Batman has to come back."
Batman "What if he doesn't exist anymore?"
Gordon: "He must. He must."

While the themes of Begins and Knight were fear and chaos, respectfully, the theme of Rises is pain, like that of a ghost coming back to haunt our main characters (or a ghost of something they're running from). Even the score sounds like a(n ethereal) spectre.

The question of whether the Batman is needed or not seems confirmed--at least by Alfred, who doesn't believe so. Look at the scene where he pleads with Bruce not to go through with it anymore ("Maybe it's time we all stop trying to outsmart the truth and let it have its day"). Alfred even confesses that he never wanted Bruce to return to Gotham in the first place, and instead has been fantasizing about how they could have moved on with their lives ("I knew there was nothing here for you but pain and tragedy, because I wanted something better for you"). Otherwise, Bruce would've never helped try to bring hope back to Gotham.

Even Bruce's own lifestyle gets questioned, as the stock market and everything around him (including his own facade) begins to crumble, all while he tries to keep his resources out of the wrong hands. He does still have a few allies, including Lucius Fox, as well as a young ideal cop named John Blake (an excellent Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Wayne Enterprises board member Miranda Tate (the incredible Marion Cotillard), and the ambiguous cat burglar Selina Kyle (a scene-stealing Anne Hathaway). Most of these characters (Bane included) represent figures in masks, much to intriguing effect, and even exemplify children born in tragedies.


The film's emphasis on economics and welfare is rampant throughout, with echoes of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities," from the aforementioned stock exchange to sewers of work for the desperate and homeless to Bane's hostile takeover of Gotham, not to mention his deceptive view of himself as "necessary evil". Tom Hardy is certainly imposing and intimidating as the masked mercenary, with his claw-figured breathing mask, Victorian-era coat, and liberation of Gotham into a wasteland. (Consider the 9/11-esque imagery of policemen going down into the tunnels.) But his voice is the most interesting and unexpected. (Hardy was inspired by real-life English-born bare-knuckle fighter Bartley Gorman for the character's voice.)

If the film has a weakness (aside from a few flashbacks to the previous two films), it may be in the character of Miranda Tate, who arguably proves questionable and mysterious throughout. "You have to invest if you want to restore balance to the world," she tells Bruce. There are times where her character doesn't really work (neither does her romance with Wayne, including an unnecessary love scene), at least until her true character is revealed, showcasing Cotillard's stellar and sharp range. (I should mention that the second and third installments have also gotten a lot of flack because of Bale's scruffy, Clint Eastwood-like delivery, which are a bit distracting, to be sure.) Bruce's ambiguous relationship with Selina Kyle, on the other hand, works much better, and provides one of the most dynamic relationships in a comic-book-related movie. (They've had an interesting dynamic since the comics to begin with, as well as in Tim Burton's Batman Returns and the animated series from the Nineties.) 

The thematic imagery of climbing out of a pit (much like the well Bruce fell into as a child) comes full circle here. With a rousing chant composed once again by Zimmer sans Howard, Bruce embarks on stopping Bane's plot of not just breaking Gotham's city and people, but their spirits as well. (Sound familiar?) Selina's early views of this (and her reactions) foreshadow the horrors she knows are to come, and which she herself tries to escape from. "There's more to you than that," argues Bruce.

Like Inception (Nolan's incredible sci-fi caper from 2010), I initially thought The Dark Knight Rises ended on a cheap note. In retrospect, that turns out to be a smart trick on the filmmakers' parts, including Goyer's and the brothers Nolan (who conceived and wrote the script). The reactions and actions of Gordon, Blake, Alfred, and aircraft technicians, as well as references to a string of pearls and a new signal in place, are more effective and detailed in that regard. The series (at least Nolan's interpretation) is, therefore, complete. But, like the first two films, Rises has a sense of continuation and possibility. Again, smart moves.

(l-r) Tom Hardy and Christian Bale in The Dark Knight Rises

"I'm still a believer in the Batman, even if you're not."
Nolan and company have done a brilliant job in grounding these films (particularly Knight and Rises) in reality, although there are pros and cons to this approach. From real sets to location shoots to state-of-the-art IMAX footage and minimal CGI (techniques Nolan would use in his later films Interstellar [2014], 
Dunkirk [2017], and Tenet [2020]), and impeccable casting, the results are phenomenal and thoroughly gripping. That goes just as well for Nolan's experimental domino effect of spontaneity in action and dialogue during various moments. Did I mention Wayne operates out of an underground warehouse (as Wayne Manor is apparently under reconstruction) in The Dark Knight?

That being said, it's worth noting a few standout sequences in this franchise, including the Dark Knight's first appearance and the Tumbler's roller-coaster pursuit in Begins; Batman and the Joker's interrogation in Knight (a halfway mark for the trilogy); the Bat aircraft's flights, and the football stadium chillingly intercut with "The Star Spangled Banner," in Rises; and what may be the single greatest action sequence in the history of cinema (or, at least in the 21st Century): the semi-truck chase (and flip) against the Batpod in Knight.

Before I conclude, I need to address and acknowledge the elephant in the room. It shouldn't be ignored that this series has unfortunately been affected by certain tragedies, including the unexpected passing of Ledger in January 2008, while an advanced screening of Rises in Aurora, Colorado, during opening weekend in July 2012 was robbed by a shocking theater shooting. (For many, it's hard to separate film and television from real-life violence.) Christian Bale, to his credit, made a significant contribution to the latter community when he willingly visited the families of Aurora, exemplifying real-life heroism and generosity. 

On that same note, another relevant and timely theme throughout these films is that Batman represents more than a name, more than a man, more than a mysterious figure. He's an ideal, a symbol that anyone can be a hero. Other characters may be misguided in their own journeys, including the League of Shadows and Harvey Dent ("You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain"); even Batman tends to use some questionable methods in the process. He may not "have the luxury of friends" as he initially claims, and yet he tries to maintain a higher moral code, going so far as to never killing his opponents (a noble act, for sure).

These films did culminate into what eventually became known as The Dark Knight Trilogy. In retrospect, Nolan and company created a three-film structure that not only works stronger together as opposed to individual films (much like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy). These films have redefined what tentpole movies are, for better or worse. From reboots to sequels to other three-act narratives, especially comic-book or superhero-related, this feat was subsequently seen in films like Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), Logan (2017), Black Panther (2018), and even non-comic book entities like the rebooted Planet of the Apes series (2011-2017). The Dark Knight Trilogy could even be an alternative to our current trend in cinematic universes courtesy Marvel and DC. It certainly is a distinct interpretation in Batman's long and versatile history. 

Sunday, July 25, 2021

WRITER'S CUT: Will the '89 "Batman" Please Stand Up?

"WRITER'S CUT": A collection of previously-published posts that have been thoroughly reexamined and re-edited by yours truly. (The following piece was originally posted on June 30, 2014.) 


The conventional view of comic-books, particularly of superheroes, consists of the battle between good and evil, the hero and the villain, the right and the wrong. In the early twentieth century, superheroes (including but not limited to Superman) were seen as mere perfect and extraordinary characters that were too great and too mighty to be taken seriously--apart from, of course, saving various people in the fantastical adventures that readers would escape into. 

In the late-1930s, graphic artist Bob Kane and co-writer Bill Finger were inspired to create a character that was based in reality. Kane's influences consisted of Leonardo Da Vinci's diagram of a flying machine known as the ornithopter, and popular masked figures like Zorro and the Shadow. Thus, the "Bat-man" and his alter ego Bruce Wayne were born.

In recent decades, various artists and writers have done more than provide escapism for comic-book readers. They've helped form and develop a modern mythology full of characters dealing with real situations. Many of today's filmmakers, from Sam Raimi to Christopher Nolan, have followed suit. But prior to the late-1980s, a young Indiana University alum named Michael E. Uslan had long dreamed of producing a "definitive, dark," and serious Batman film, as Kane had intended from the character's inception.

Following his debut in 1939, Batman found his way into serials of the 1930s and 1940s. However, his popularity would decline in the mid-1950s, due to the nation’s belief that comic books were brainwashing children. As a result, the character radically shifted to lighter, more cheesy, fare in the 1960s with the popular television series starring Adam West and Burt Ward.

Batman's debut in Detective Comics, Issue No. 27

Adam West and Burt Ward

"Is There A Six-Foot Bat In Gotham City?"
The legacy of DC Comics in film became widely successful with the release of Superman in 1978. Directed by Richard Donner and starring a then-unknown Christopher Reeve, it was the first movie of its kind that gave audiences a glimpse at what a cinematic superhero could be. It featured a compelling and captivating story with an A-list cast and enough spectacle and action to spare. It would take ten years for Batman to officially follow the Man of Steel's lead. In the mean time, writer and artist Frank Miller released his graphic novels, "The Dark Knight Returns" and “Batman: Year One," which helped change the public's perceptions of Batman by harkening back to Kane’s original intention a “dark vigilante,” thus paving the way for what was to come. 

Shot in Pinewood Studios in London, Batman took full advantage of minimal effects and practical sets, including a haunting Gotham City and slick Batmobile. Late production designer Anton Furst succeeded by echoing back to the classic serials and expressionism of the Thirties and Fourties. With an up-and-coming Tim Burton (fresh off of the Warner-produced Pee-Wee's Big Adventure) in the director's chair, Batman unsurprisingly faced numerous controversies, particularly with the casting of Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne. (Keaton had been known for comedic roles like Mr. Mom and Night Shift, and had headlined Burton's previous film Beetlejuice.) 

To reduce such negative speculation (and to prove that it wasn’t another campy rendition), a 90-second trailer of the film was shown in theaters in the fall of 1988, much to the surprise of audiences and fans. The advertising campaign (featuring the newly-refined and now-iconic bat symbol) became a phenomenon, as well as an unprecedented marketing connection between the comic-book and film industries. Still, there was some concern from theater owners, who wondered if the film was going to be too dark. 

Upon its release in the summer of 1989, the film was a mega hit. It is dark and brooding, to be sure, and should not be taken lightly. (It could've done without some of the Prince tracks, especially during the end credits.) And even though it does spend more time with Jack Nicholson’s unforgettable performance as the Joker--and lest we forget a couple of controversial third-act scenes--it does (more than the other movies in the original series, courtesy Burton and Joel Schumacher) tap into the mystery, trauma and darkness of Bruce Wayne.

Gotham City

"Duel of the Freaks"

"I Made You, You Made Me"
Looking closely at the film's various elements (imperfect as they may be) in recent years, I find the story to be effective and thoroughly riveting. In fact, one could argue that it follows a brilliant three-act structure, holding its own alongside other brilliantly-made blockbusters of the time (1985's Back to the Future, 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and soon 1990's Home Alone). 

The opening credit sequence (zooming through the aforementioned Bat emblem against Danny Elfman's chilling and powerful score) foreshadows the darkness and mystery ahead, as the world of Gotham City is presented in all its blackness and corruption, and the mysterious figure who stalks and scares criminals in the shadows.

Politicians and authorities are introduced, including Commissioner Gordon (the late Pat Hingle) and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Lando Calrissian himself, Billy Dee Williams), dedicated to cleaning up the crime waves of the city. There are the police, particularly the dirty cops, who are aware of the news of the "Batman". There are the crime lords, including mob boss Carl Grissom (the late Jack Palance), and his right hand man Jack Napier (Nicholson) who eventually becomes the Joker. 

There's also reporter Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl), who searches high and low for a story on the masked vigilante, and celebrated photographer Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) who arrives in Gotham, intrigued by stories of the "Bat". And, of course, there's the rich, neurotic, enigmatic, and traumatic Bruce Wayne (Keaton), who, like Charles Foster Kane, you want to know, but can't. 

The story itself is not as strong as the visuals, themes and ideas it generates, with the central conflict in the form of the opposing and sadistic Joker (whom Wayne inadvertently creates and ultimately has to stop), leading up to a climactic "opera" of sorts. Furthermore, what makes Batman distinct is how it poetically and operatically illustrates the "villain" exposing who he is to the public (“Winged freak terrorizes? Wait 'til they get a load of me”), while the "hero" keeps his identity in the shadows. This even creates debate over which of the two is more dangerous, or if they're just two sides of the same coin. These themes make Batman the quintessential comic-book-based film that asks the central, thought-provoking question: Does the villain make the hero, or does the hero make the villain?

Thursday, July 22, 2021

WRITER'S CUT: The Batman "Returns" in the Nineties or, What Wouldn't Keep "Forever"

"WRITER'S CUT": A collection of previously-published posts that have been thoroughly reexamined and re-edited by yours truly. (The following was originally published on November 21, 2016, and has been updated ahead of the soon-to-be-released Amazon/A24 documentary Val.) 


One of the interesting things about looking back on the history of comic book characters and their leap to the silver screen is learning about (and from) their respective high and low points. This includes the respective filmmakers' creative control and Hollywood's long reputation of studio interference.

A few years ago, I had written extensively about Batman (the first--and, to this day, favorite--comic book/superhero character I ever remember) and his big-screen interpretations since 1989. In fact, it was that seminal Tim Burton-directed feature that gave new life to the character after a two-decade absence (read my initial review of the film here). Since then, I've had two other fond childhood memories of the character and the franchise: the award-winning animated series that premiered on Fox in 1992, and the 1995 sequel/reboot, Batman Forever

The original movies from the late-1980s to the late-1990s have generally been criticized for their style over substance, action over story, and villains over heroes. The first movie (which pitted Michael Keaton's Caped Crusader against Jack Nicholson's wild-and-crazy Joker) had an artful-yet-dark tone, for sure. The second film, 1992's Batman Returns, initially upset critics--and eventually numerous soccer moms--with its grim and nightmarish atmosphere, as Bruce Wayne (Keaton, once again) battled both the nasty Penguin (Danny DeVito) and the sensuous Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). This backlash prompted Warner Brothers to aim for a lighter, more family-friendly approach with the next installment--despite the fact that the previous outing, the 1993 animated feature/spin-off Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, was PG-rated. Having rewatched Forever in retrospect, I stand heavily divided on it, as far as I'm concerned. 

On the positive side, Val Kilmer is an effecting Bruce Wayne at best, while an interesting and distinct Batman at least. (The Top Gun/Tombstone actor has a hypnotic and mesmerizing voice to begin with.) The motif of duality and split personalities is prevalent not just in Kilmer's rendition, but also in the supporting cast of characters from Harvey Dent/Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), abnormal psychiatrist Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), acrobat-turned-sidekick Dick Grayson/Robin (Chris O'Donnell), and scene-stealing mad scientist Edward Nygma/The Riddler (Jim Carrey). Carrey's scenes, in fact, give the film a physically-comedic vibe similar to Nicholson's in the original and Pfeiffer's in Returns. It also helps that Robin's origin story is well told in this 1995 iteration. 

But despite a brilliant flashback sequence showcasing Bruce's evident and complex past (along with Kilmer's aforementioned voice and haunting narration), the two disadvantages of his performance are his sex appeal, and the character's lack of mystery and terror. Moments of sensuality between him and Kidman's Meridian are unnecessary, especially when trying to appeal to a broader audience. Plus, the now-infamous rubber Batsuit nipples are more than a distraction, as they are for many other viewers. 

The newly-styled Batmobile in Batman Forever

George Clooney and Chris O'Donnell in Batman & Robin

While the complexity of the Caped Crusader does surface at times, all of that really takes a backseat to the popcorn entertainment and action that permeates this movie. The filmmakers have stated that the look of Gotham City here was inspired by the comics of the 1950s, and they even paid clever homage to the first appearances of Robin and the Riddler from that era. On the other hand, one reviewer compared this film's Gotham City to Las Vegas, while producer Peter Macgregor-Scott described it as "Saturday Night Fever on acid." Some of the action sequences (including the stylish Batmobile speeding up the side of a building) are pretty cool and spectacular. But there's, also, the film's biggest disadvantage, in terms of over-the-top pyrotechnics and characterizations (Jones' Two-Face is extremely overkill, I should add). And this "overkill" would unfortunately dominate the critical and commercial disappointment that was 1997's Batman & Robin, and leave the franchise in the dust for a time. 

George Clooney (who replaced Kilmer in the 1997 movie) has stated that doing Batman & Robin was one of his biggest career regrets, while O'Donnell summed it up to a tee: "When I made Batman Forever, I felt like I was making a movie. When I made [Batman & Robin], I felt like I was making a toy commercial." Clooney and director Joel Schumacher have since apologized, while recently there has been a demand for a reported "Schumacher Cut" of Forever (said to be much darker and less cartoony than the finished product).

When interviewed years later on the general public's response to both Schumacher films, executive producer Michael E. Uslan (who's been a producer on the franchise since 1989) described it this way

The best way I can answer that is probably to talk generally about the industry, as opposed to talking specifically about Batman. There are times when you need to step back and realize that movie studios today are not necessarily the same things that they were many years ago. Many movie studios are international conglomerates now. They own everything from theme parks to toy companies to T-shirt companies to video companies. There's a lot of different wheels to be greased. Sometimes, over the decades, the tail started wagging the dog. In some cases, decisions were being guided more by toys and Happy Meals than by creative filmmaking. The danger there is that the entertainment you're making starts to feel like an infomercial for toys, as opposed to great film. Rather than being in a position where a studio dictates that a movie should be light, bright, and kiddie-friendly and family-friendly, with three or four heroes and three or four villains, and each one having two costume changes and two vehicles, to satisfy the toy and merchandising requirement, I think just letting filmmakers-great filmmakers-just go out and make great films, with a belief that if they make great films, you're going to sell merchandising and video games and things anyway, is the best way to do it.

Tim Burton behind the scenes of Batman Returns

Michelle Pheiffer, Danny DeVito and Michael Keaton in Batman Returns

Uslan makes a great point in starting with films first, and then having toys and merchandising spin off from that. I think one of the reasons Batman Forever and its mind-numbing follow-up don't hold up today is because, at the time, they seemed to fulfill the supposed expectations of what Hollywood thought a conventional comic-book movie should be (complete with a hip, pop soundtrack album), instead of allowing filmmakers to bring their own creative visions to life. (The same thing happened with the Superman franchise in the 1980s.) 

This is why Burton's respective films in the series stand out, what with their artful, intriguing and provocative undertones. (To be fair, Returns is more episodic, and absolutely not for children.) On the other hand, all of the films here (preceding Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, which brought much-needed dignity back to the series in spades) showcase Batman's adaptability to both art house-style filmmaking and summer blockbuster entertainment (for better or worse), as well as to comic books and animation and other mediums. Personally, I'll take complexity and morality tales over glamour and glitz any day of the week. 

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

WRITER'S CUT: The Many Hybrids of "Roger Rabbit"

"WRITER'S CUT": A collection of previously-published posts that have been thoroughly reexamined and re-edited by yours truly. (The following was originally published on February 28, 2018.) 


In a world where human beings and cartoon characters co-exist, a hard-boiled private detective is assigned to help a superstar rabbit who is framed for murder. That's the basic premise of the 1988 Disney-produced full-length feature, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a film that not only broke new ground in seamlessly combining live-action and animation, but with other unlikely elements, for better and/or worse. To understand this film's impact, one must understand two things: where the Walt Disney Studio was at around this time, and where the state of Hollywood was. 

First, Disney. The company had been in a slump since the death of Walt in 1967. That's not to say the theme parks and live-action movies didn't do fairly good business (which they did). Plus, a new generation of animators were being trained by the old guard at the California Institute of the Arts (CalArts). The thing is, the company's animation division was in decline for over a decade. Enter 1984. Management had shifted that year with the announcement of Michael Eisner and Frank Wells as the company's new CEO and President, respectfully, while Jeffrey Katzenberg and vice-chairman Roy E. Disney (nephew of Walt) oversaw the animation department. 

1985's financial disappointment that was The Black Cauldron (which had been in development at the studio for years) was Disney's attempt to keep in step with other adventure blockbusters of the time (namely, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars). Meanwhile, another project that had long been in development was a script by writers Jeffrey Price and Peter Sherman, based on Gary K. Wolf's noir novel, "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" (which centered on comic-strip characters instead of "Toons"). Add in director Robert Zemeckis (fresh off of 1985's Back to the Future), executive producer Steven Spielberg (a lifelong animation fan), veteran animator Richard Williams and cutting-edge visual effects, and the rest is history. 

Hollywood, on the other hand, had been making radical shifts in onscreen content since the 1960s. Particularly in the 1980s, various studios released several "PG-rated" films (some produced by Spielberg) that, while box-office hits, contained dark, sinister, violent and/or nightmarish elements that have traumatized children for years. (Remember Large Marge in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, or the green creatures in Gremlins? Of course you do.) 

In the fascinating 2009 documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty, veteran Disney producer Don Hahn recounted a survey that the studio did years prior, which stated that "a majority of teenage moviegoers wouldn't be caught dead near a Disney movie [let alone an animated one]." (Go figure.) This dark period in the history of the Mouse House arguably began to turn in 1986 with the release of the well-received The Great Mouse Detective. But it was Who Framed Roger Rabbit that was reportedly responsible for reviving critics' and audiences' interest in the medium.

One could argue that the story in Roger Rabbit is that of a man (Eddie Valient, played by Bob Hoskins) rediscovering who he used to be--before a tragic incident sent him into a downward spiral--as well as his faith in cartoons and what they represent, by way of solving a murder case (and stopping a deadly plan to put an end to the existence of "Toontown"). How's that for an interesting real-life parallel? 

Bob Hoskins side-by-side with his animated co-star,
after "bumping the lamp"

"Smile, Darn Ya, Smile" 
Disney had combined animation and live-action before with films like the "Alice Adventures" from the 1920s, followed by Song of the South (1946), Mary Poppins (1964), and Pete's Dragon (1977). And who could forget Gene Kelly's ever-popular dance with Jerry the Mouse in the classic MGM short from 1944? 

Of course, this hybrid between both mediums has been done so often--especially in this day and age of CGI action extravaganzas involving giant robots, superheroes, and goofy minions--that many forget (or may not even know) that there once was a time where cell drawings were the norm, not to mention a rare achievement. Especially if they were done right, cinematically-speaking. In other words, by really convincing audiences that both the characters and/or worlds were occupying the same space, was there the suspension of disbelief. 

Richard Williams had been making a career out of bending the conventional rules of what animation was capable of, whether in the hundreds of commercials he and his team created since the 1960s and 1970s, his Oscar-winning short version of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, his feature-film adaptation of Raggedy Ann & Andy, or his years-in-the-making passion project The Thief and the Cobbler (but that's another story). 

When meeting with Robert Zemeckis to discuss Roger Rabbit, Williams sought to break several preconceived "rules" when integrating animated characters in the real world: moving the camera around as much as possible, having cartoons interact with real objects and people as much as possible, and incorporating special lighting and shadow effects that had never been achieved to such an extreme. The resulting film is a culmination of these unconventional and modern approaches, along with other unlikely elements and factors that had never been achieved before either: special effects in a period film-noir setting; and animation that echoed the first Golden Age of Disney, characterizations that echoed Warner Brothers, and off-the-wall humor that echoed Tex Avery shorts. Even Roger's character design, according to Williams, is a combination of various classic characters (i.e., Goofy's pants, Porky Pig's bow tie). Yet the zany rabbit stands as his own, especially with his trademark speech impediment.

I'll reiterate, as many can attest here. The animation in Who Framed Roger Rabbit is phenomenal and unparalleled, and represented a landmark in motion pictures. (I'll never forget that opening scene in the film, where Roger and Baby Herman walk off an animated movie set and into the real world.) All animation (save for three shots of stop-motion effects) was done by hand and required not only flat drawings, but optical effects as well to give each character a three-dimensional look while retaining a classic mid-20th Century authenticity. Hoskins (who sadly passed away in 2014) does an incredible job making us thoroughly believe he's really interacting with "imaginary" characters, getting the eye-lines and emotions down to a tee. 

A great example of these elements combined is the scene where Eddie is trying to saw a pair of handcuffs off of him and Roger in the back of a local bar, after accidentally bumping into a lamp. The term "bumping the lamp" was created during the making of Roger Rabbit, referring to the animators and technicians going above and beyond to make certain moments feel extra special, even though most viewers probably wouldn't notice them.

We have to also mention the unique mechanical devices that were created to mimic various character actions on set (before being traced over in post-production), whether it was the henchmen weasels carrying guns, Baby Herman smoking and gesturing with a cigar, or Roger smashing plates onto his head one by one. It's one thing for real actors to pick up animated props (like a boxing-glove hammer), but it's entirely another for cartoons to do the same thing with real objects. It's hard to believe that no computers or tracking software were used for any of these effects, and the film is all the richer and idiosyncratic for it. Plus, it makes the setting (and its VistaVision cinematography) representative of the late-40s . 

Reportedly, the most amazing contribution that Spielberg made was convincing several studios to loan out their cartoon stars for cameo appearances--and for good trivial fun. In fact, this was the first and only time that characters from Disney and Warner Bros have been in the same movie. Remember Donald Duck and Daffy Duck's piano duet in the Ink & Paint Club, or Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny sky-diving? Or how about Eddie's first walk through the Maroon cartoon studio as he passes "half the cast of Fantasia"? 

Roger Rabbit and Eddie Valiant

"The Parts That I Don't Like, I'm Gonna Edit Out"
This is all great news, in terms of keeping the craft and creativity of the medium alive. And the film was very worthy of the Academy Awards it received for its film and sound editing, and for its visual effects, not to mention its overwhelming raves from numerous film critics like Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. However, when it comes to "family" entertainment in retrospect, this is a film parents of young children ought to think twice about.

Sure, the movie's funny, clever, and imaginative, especially for cinephiles and animation geeks. (I'm one of them.) And even though critic Leonard Maltin once wrote that the film's true high mark was "making us believe that Roger and his cartoon colleagues actually exist," don't let Who Framed Roger Rabbit make you believe it's appropriate for kids. The film-noir atmosphere (with support from Alan Silvestri's bizarre score) makes it equally thrilling, sometimes unpleasant, even provocative. Roger's sexy wife Jessica (with her revealing and exaggerated wardrobe and bosom) is unfortunately made a figure of unnecessary objectification. Baby Herman can be misogynistic. And lest we forget, veteran character actor Christopher Lloyd (as the menacing Judge Doom, with his Toon-killing "dip") has a shocking revelation that still frightens me--and many others--to this day. (Zemeckis has had a reputation for dark comedy, having gone on to executive produce the anthology T.V. series Tales From the Crypt.)

One would wonder how the writers and filmmakers got away with, as Eddie describes, "a story of greed, sex, and murder" in a PG-rated film. "It was the Eighties," joked Zemeckis at a 2013 Q&A/cast and crew reunion, while adding that this movie couldn't be made today for those reasons (The film's effects, meanwhile, have never been attempted since.) Michael Eisner, to his credit, considered the film "too risque" to be distributed under the Disney label, and instead released it under their more adult-oriented Touchstone Pictures banner. At least the three spin-off Roger Rabbit shorts (1989's Tummy Trouble, 1990's Roller Coaster Rabbit, and 1993's Trail Mix-Up) were less problematic, and the quality of animation at Disney continued to rapidly grow for kids and adults. Like the wall that breaks between both the real world and Toontown at the end of the film, there was hope for the medium, and for other characters and stories to captivate and humor audiences beyond just pencil drawings. If only they could do that again today like they did then, sans the gratuitous elements. "Pppppppplease."