The Lone Ranger (and Tonto)

I feel like I’ve been waiting for The Lone Ranger for years.  And considering both the filming and the release date were delayed at least once each, that may not be an unreasonable estimate!  I finally saw the movie on the Fourth of July and happily, it was worth the wait.

The-Lone-Ranger-Movie-Wallpaper1

Johnny Depp as Tonto is the most obvious reason I was excited by this movie, but there’s more to it than that.  I’m a rather passionate fan of Pirates of the Caribbean, and this was made by pretty much all the same people.  It’s a Disney movie produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, directed by Gore Verbinski, written by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, with a soundtrack by Hans Zimmer and, of course, Johnny Depp in a wild and weird role.  Plus Lone Ranger has Helena Bonham Carter and the quite attractive Armie Hammer thrown in for good measure.

Lone Ranger is not Pirates of the Caribbean (what is?) but it’s a similarly fun ride, and some of those parallels most definitely show.  They stole some fight choreography out of Pirates, there are similar character arcs, and there are over-the-top, improbable (well, probably impossible) action sequences.

The movie is an origin story for the Lone Ranger, Texas vigilante in the Old West.  John Reed is the sole survivor of a massacre of Rangers.  Rescued by renegade Comanche Tonto, who has his own reasons for hunting the outlaws at fault, the two join forces to seek justice.  There follows a tangle of searches for information, hunts, missteps and near misses, and reveals of backstory and conspiracies.  It’s all really a vehicle for funny moments and insane action sequences (like galloping a horse along the top of a moving train…to the William Tell Overture, of course).

the-lone-ranger-2013-depp-as-tontoTonto seems to have received a lot more attention in the lead-up to the movie than the Lone Ranger–partially because it’s Johnny Depp, and partially because of the controversy around portraying a Native American character.  To me, Tonto felt much less like any attempt to make a racial comment and much more like another in a long line of wacky and weird Depp characters.  Depp’s Tonto is plainly unbalanced.  He’s also the comedic center of the story, and easily the show-stealer of the whole movie.  Trading with dead men, talking to horses or scattering cracked corn everywhere he goes, he’s endlessly entertaining.  The bird on his head is not just a fashion statement but something he frequently interacts with (and it turns out to have a surprisingly dramatic backstory).

Tonto is effectively played for laughs, although in some ways I feel like they never quite nailed down his character.  To paraphrase Captain Jack, it’s funny how often madness and genius coincide.  While Jack usually comes across as genius (if twitchy and eccentric genius), with Tonto it’s more often madness.  It’s much harder to tell which side of the line he falls on, and the movie fell off a few times trying to walk on it.  I was hoping for something to ultimately reveal whether his, um, unusual way of looking at the world really is valid, or really is madness…and it never quite came.

Even though the Lone Ranger was the title character and arguably the impetus to the plot, he fulfilled a Will Turner-type role in the movie, as the handsome friend to the eccentric show-stealer.  He undergoes a similar arc too, from the uptight, straight-laced fish out of water, to finding confidence and competence under the rather shaky mentorship of Depp’s character.  I’m not sure why he’s quite so incapable of coping with the Wild West, considering he’s a native son of the frontier town, but he comes back from years away as the intellectual cityite with no real understanding.  And it is quite hilariously funny when he accuses the Madame of the brothel of breaking numerous health codes, including having a suspicious jar of pickles on the bar…

This was mostly a man’s movie, but Helena Bonham Carter does do a very entertaining turn as said-Madame, typically eccentric as well.  There’s also a love interest, who has her moments although she’s no Elizabeth Swann, and is definitely secondary to the quest for vengeance.

THE LONE RANGERRepresenting the animal contingent, Silver is a truly weird horse.  Tonto takes him to be a spirit animal, and he’s certainly an, erm, independent spirit.  The horse gets a lot of laughs, and it’s fun just to have the faithful steed as an actual character with his own quirks.

I enjoyed this hugely, but my biggest criticism of the movie is the level of violence.  It’s not graphic, but it is obvious and frequently brutal.  One of the opening sequences features a group of outlaws taking a train, and the casual shooting of anyone in their way is shocking in its callousness.  The death of walk-on characters (or redshirts) is a usual convention in this kind of story, but there was something about this that felt a notch higher in violence.  The massacre of the Rangers is also pretty horrific, and while the facts of the scene are plot-necessary, the details could easily have been toned down.  John’s brother doesn’t just die; he dies in a horrible way, and while it’s below the edge of the screen, there’s still no question about what happens.  There are also shots lingering on each of the dead bodies of the Rangers.

The second half of the movie is in some ways better on that front.  The action sequences become less brutal, bigger and more absurd, transcending to the level of cartoon.  Without any element of reality, they become less disturbing–although that’s problematic in its own way, on the level of desensitization.  On a similar note, as is also typical in this type of movie, the Lone Ranger and Tonto both take enough falls and general pummeling to be dead several times over.  I’ll accept the absurd falls, and the crazy stunts–but it does bother me that there are quite a few moments where the violence level felt gratuitous.  This has been marketed as (and for the most part is) a family-friendly, comedy-adventure, and it’s disappointing that they couldn’t rein back the violence to a more appropriate level.

I’ve seen the objection to the violence made elsewhere too, and hopefully Disney will listen (I’m not that hopeful, but it’s possible).  If this movie does well at the Box Office, I’ve no doubt they’ll have the opportunity to try again.  The movie is complete in itself, but it has every marking of the first of a series…and if Johnny Depp signs up again, you can bet I’ll go see it.

Movie site: http://disney.go.com/the-lone-ranger/

Breaking the 1st Rule of Writing

Stonehenge 2It doesn’t take much looking to know that there are many, many rules of writing.  Part of the trick is not only knowing the rules, but knowing when not to follow them.  For my writing group’s blog, Stonehenge Writers, I have a post today discussing the times to break even the most perennial of rules: show don’t tell.  (And featuring an example from The Princess Bride.)  I hope you’ll take a look!

The Last Unicorn Read-Along, Movie Edition

Rounding out The Last Unicorn discussion, today I’m looking at the movie version.  Barring the possibility that I saw it as a kid and remember nothing (unlikely) this was my first experience with the movie, and either way, it was all new!  It was interesting to watch so soon after reading the book, and I really enjoyed the movie overall.  It was fun to compare, and it’s a good movie in its own right…though rather like the book, it’s much more deep and complex than I might have expected (if I hadn’t read the book, that is).

I’m not going to use all of Lynn’s questions this time, because she gets into some details I must admit I didn’t notice.  There are some stories I can discuss that kind of minute detail about (try me on the choreography in Webber’s Phantom) but I don’t know this one well enough!  Here goes some thoughts, though…

The movie is very faithful to the book in a lot of ways, but one of the most noticeable changes to me has always been that it moves the unicorn’s encounter with the butterfly forward. What do you think this does for the narrative? Does it work better or worse for you?

Mixed thoughts here.  I do like that the butterfly gives the unicorn added impetus to leave her forest, and that certainly focuses the plot more by bringing the Red Bull in as an element earlier on.  On the other hand, somehow I like it in the book that she meets the butterfly already out in the world.  Since he’s representative of outside knowledge, I’m not sure I like it that he turns up in the unicorn’s forest in the movie.

On another point, I can’t decide if I like the butterfly’s changing hats.  It’s clever, and it’s a visual for his frantically spinning dialogue, but it also has a kind of Genie-from-Aladdin feel, and seems almost a little too silly for this movie, especially early on when the tone was still being set.

One of the biggest differences between the novel and the movie is that the movie cuts out the storyline of Hagsgate almost entirely. What do you think it does for the plot? Do you think it’s something that the adaptation should have kept or does it work without Hagsgate’s tale?

I quite missed Hagsgate, actually.  That was easily the biggest thing that felt missing to me.  I think the prophecy, especially around Lir, added a really big additional layer of legend, and tied this so much more into traditional tales.  I feel like losing the prophecy means losing two or three layers of meaning!  Additionally, Haggard’s throw-away movie line about picking up Lir as an orphan feels like a total “say what now?” thing with no further context, while the context of the book means it’s just one part of something hugely layered and important.

I also like Hagsgate just to know that there are people in this country.  Of course there are the outlaws and the traveling circus, but those are wanderers on the fringes of society.  Hagsgate (however twisted it may be) is the only actual representative of society, which the others are on the fringes of.  I get stuck on this in Lord of the Rings and Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere too, trying to figure out where normal people in the magical world live their normal lives…because not everyone can be engaged on magical quests.

The movie has a tendency to condense the passing of time into a song sequence. Do you feel that the songs enhance the storyline or that they don’t fit the narrative?

I didn’t notice the time-condensing aspect of the songs all that much (maybe because songs for travel periods feels normal in movies) but I did really like the songs.  In a way they’re a good example of what makes this story different than might be expected.  I feel like if someone told me there was a movie about a unicorn, with songs, I would have a very clear picture of what those songs would be like–but rather like Schmendrick the “bumbling magician,” the songs aren’t at all what I would have been imagining.  They’re much more reflective, and really fit the style of the story.

The opening song especially was so beautiful, and so effective at showing the unicorn’s earlier life–and it was familiar.  I’m reasonably sure I never saw this movie before (see first paragraph) but I knew the song and I have no idea why or where I might have heard it.  Memory is funny, isn’t it?

What were your favourite moments of the movie? Did the movie leave out any of your favourite bits of the story?

Strangely enough, I most liked and least liked the visual of the movie.  Let me try to unpack that…  The book is in many ways very cerebral.  There’s so much going on and much of it is on (here’s that word again) layers that are below the surface of what we’re actually seeing.  Some things can be conveyed through the visual of the movie, or through character dialogue, but some subtleties and nuances have to be in thoughts, or even in the style of the writing–there’s no way to completely carry that over.  However, at the same time, all those layers in the book sometimes makes it hard to actually see the visual level, because the description (while beautiful) is also hard to pick apart from the abstract.

So I really liked some of the visual of the movie–the best was the image of the unicorns among the waves, because I could never quite see that in the book.  I also liked the movie’s twist of showing things differently to demonstrate what different people were seeing.  Most of the uses of that trick in the carnival were really effective–except for the unicorn’s double horn, which just bothered me somehow.  But I liked the depiction of the Red Bull, and Haggard’s castle.

On the other hand, visually seeing the unicorn, a goofy-looking magician and a handsome prince made that surface-level story feel stronger in the movie.  Which is good and bad, because I had trouble relating to the surface-story in the book, but on the other hand, relating to it in the movie may be at the expense of deeper layers.

So…yes.  The visuals were my favorite part, and least favorite part.  And I feel like that’s an appropriate comment to make about a story that discusses truths, contradictions and, of course, many different layers…

Saturday Snapshot: Revisiting the Tomatoes

Just a quick post today…the weather has been sweltering here recently which I’m not thrilled about, but I guess it’s working out for my tomato plants…

Tomato Plants (2)

Tomato Plants (1)

Visit West Metro Mommy for more Saturday Snapshots.  I hope you’re enjoying the holiday weekend!

Favorites Friday: Movies for the Fourth of July

I hope you enjoyed some fireworks and barbecuing yesterday!  I may be a little late with this post, but it’s still Fourth of July weekend, so I thought I’d offer up a list of movies in the spirit of the holiday…

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (review here) is my top pick for Fourth of July, not because it has anything much to do with the revolution (although Mr. Smith’s first name is Jefferson) but because it celebrates, as only Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart can do, all that is best in American ideals of democracy.  Mr. Smith is the dreamer who believes in honesty and fair play and a government that serves and protects the people, going up against a world that isn’t so straight-forward.

1776 is a close second, a comedic, musical look at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  It may not always portray the Founding Fathers positively or entirely accurately (apparently the only historical record indicating John Adams was “obnoxious and disliked” is in his own writing, and Richard Henry Lee wasn’t the idiot he’s portrayed as here), but the whole thing is pervaded with a warm affection for the characters–and it’s just so much fun!  With some nice messages about ideals too.

The Sandlot has no revolution or political message, but it does have a scene on the Fourth of July.  More importantly, I think it captures a certain slice of Americana, with its innocent story of boys playing sandlot baseball, eating s’mores, making friends and getting into trouble over one long summer when anything seemed possible.

Newsies (review here) has a kind of revolution, although not the 1776 one.  Set in New York in 1899 and (loosely) based on real history, it tells the story of newsboys going on strike against the powerful newspaper publishers.  It’s a David-and-Goliath story, centers around friendship and fighting for your rights–and features a host of wonderful “rally the troops” songs and adorably enthusiastic newsboys.

National Treasure is no doubt even less historically accurate than 1776, but it’s a fun romp and adventure story based around a mystery/conspiracy theory about the Founding Fathers.  It features all sorts of artifacts and monuments, and like Mr. Smith, the main character, Benjamin Franklin Gates, is named after a Revolutionary figure.

So much for my round-up!  What do you like to watch on the Fourth of July?