Anna and the King

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:16 am

This is the fourth movie version — and the second this year — of the story of Anna Leonowens, brought to Siam in 1864 by King Monghut to teach his children. Anna and the King end up teaching each other a few things, too.

Of course, the best-remembered is the classic with Yul Brynner, Deborah Kerr, and the unforgettable songs by Rodgers and Hammerstein. This version has spectacle to spare, but no “Getting to Know You,” no “Whistle a Happy Tune,” no genuine connection between the two leads (though we are supposed to believe that they are in love with one another), and a script that teeters between stolid and awful.

Jody Foster plays Anna, a widowed Englishwoman who lived most of her life in India. The king hires her because he wants his children to learn more about the world outside of Siam. She respects his culture, but she is appalled by the cruel treatment of bonded servants and urges him to make changes. The king is very progressive in some ways. He respects her independent spirit and values her counsel, but he forbids her to talk to her students about that issue.

Siam is independent, but bounded by colonies of France and England, and vulnerable. Anna aids the King in persuading the English that Siam is stable and “civilized.” And when the King and his children are in danger, Anna provides support.

It’s best to watch this movie with your eyes more than your ears. It is a visual treat. Cinematographer Caleb Deschanel (“The Black Stallion”) creates stunning images of splendor. But the dialogue is dreadful and the plot does not hold together, especially in a bizarre Mulan-style rescue. Worst of all is the all-but-loony way that the two leads, both playing highly principled people deeply aware of their responsibilities linger over a goodbye when the bad guys are charging, dance romantically in the middle of a state dinner, and generally act like Archie and Veronica at the malt shop.

Parents should know that the movie has some very intense violence, including battle scenes, bloody beatings, and non-graphic but very tense beheadings. Dead bodies hang from a tree and soldiers are poisoned. There is a very sad death of a child. There are references to the king’s many wives and concubines and one reluctant concubine is shown being prepared for her first night with him, and being reassured that he is a generous lover. The king smokes cigars and the boys try one.

As with the earlier, better, versions (including another non-musical version with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison), topics for discussion include cultural diversity and how we distinguish between fundamental truths and cultural differences, the challenges of power (for example, the constant threats from those who want to seize it), and the importance of surrounding ourselves with people who tell us the truth, even when it is hard to hear.

Cradle Will Rock

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:16 am

How do you stay true to ideals when there is pressure to compromise in order to make a living? How can you sell without selling out? These questions are provocatively posed in “mostly true” intersecting stories surrounding a pro-union play funded — and then closed — by the U.S. government.

Today’s teens live in a world in which politicians squabble about whether an “elephant dung Madonna” should be hung in a government-funded museum exhibit and rap stars famous for being outrageous and outspoken issue bowdlerized versions of their recordings in order to meet the requirements of chain stores. Older teens, who try to grapple with the problem of holding onto integrity in a complicated world, will appreciate the way those issues are raised in this movie, thoughtfully constructed by writer/director Tim Robbins to show characters with a range of dilemmas and priorities.

We see artists who want to make political statements, artists who want to make money, and artists who are thrilled by art for its beauty. The director — 22-year-old Orson Welles, just before going to Hollywood to make “Citizen Kane” — simply says that his goal is ‘to all the right people.”

We see a young businessman (Nelson Rockefeller) who wants to use his fortune for art – as long as its message is one that does not make him too uncomfortable. An older businessman wants to use his fortune to buy Old Masters — and to buy the support of politicians, so he can make more money.

Teens should notice the irony and symbolism, like the rich people dressing as Marie Antoinette’s court for a costume party and the opening newsreel showing art being censored in Nazi Germany. Why does the movie show Welles objecting to a union-required break during rehearsal? Why does the ventriloquist leave his dummy on the stage? Why is the main character of the play a prostitute? Why does Diego Rivera refuse to paint the design he agreed to?

Be sure to ask teens what they think about the movie’s final image, an attempt to tie the story directly to the present day. See if they think that the movie has any heroes, and if so, how they can tell.

Parents should know that the movie has strong language, nudity, including an artist’s nude models, and sexual references, including references to homosexuality.

FAMILY PROJECT: Welles went on to annoy one of the most powerful men in the country, William Randolph Hearst, with his next project, “Citizen Kane,” number one on the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 greatest movies. Teens might want to read more about Nelson Rockefeller and check out Digeo Rivera’s surviving murals at http://www.diegorivera.com. For more on the Federal theater project, read Hallie Flanagan: A Life in the American Theatre, by Joanne Bentley or Flanagan’s own book, Arena: The Story of the Federal Theatre.

Mickey Blue Eyes

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:16 am

Basic Movie Plot #2 is the fish out of water, and that is because it works so well. Whether we’re talking about a mermaid coming to Manhattan, a guy from the Australian outback coming to Manhattan, or Dorothy in Oz, we are easily engaged by stories like these because they have automatic tension and conflict and because they give us a chance to look at ourselves and our culture in new ways. It was only a few months ago that we had two fish out of water in “Analyze This,” with a Jewish psychologist and a Mafia wiseguy each entering the other’s world. Now we have a very similar theme in “Mickey Blue Eyes,” except this time it’s a wiseguy and a very proper English art auctioneer. I’m sure it sounded great in the pitch meeting, but then the pitch probably left out the tired and pedestrian script and a couple of astonishingly poor plot developments that thwart the movie’s many efforts to win us over.

Hugh Grant, as the auctioneer who falls in love with the daughter of a Mafioso, does his best, and he is, as ever, a pleasure to watch. And there are some clever lines and some funny moments. But a romantic comedy, even a fairly broad one, needs to have essentially likeable characters and a consistent tone, and this movie fails in both. Near the beginning, Grant’s character tries to sneak a marriage proposal into a fortune cookie, but the scene becomes unfunny and ultimately downright nasty as the owner of the restaurant shrieks at Grant’s girlfriend (Jeanne Tripplehorn to eat the cookie and at another table another woman gets the proposal and then bursts into tears when she finds out it is a mistake. Later, a rather unsavory character is shot by mistake and it is supposed to be humorous that Grant and his future father-in-law (James Caan, reprising his Sonny role) bond over disposing of the body. Meanwhile, there are many missed opportunities for follow-through on set- ups, an indication of a movie that spent a lot of time in post-production revisions.

Parents should know that this movie includes violence and crime played for comedy. It also raises more serious issues, including the importance of honesty with those you love and the risks of making even small compromises in integrity, well worth discussing for anyone who ends up sitting through the whole thing.

Related Tags:

Not specified

Practical Magic

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:16 am

This uneven adaption of Alice Hoffman’s lyrical novel is the story of two orphan girls from a family of witches. Raised by aunts who feed them brownies for breakfast and are visited by neighbors only when they are desperate for a spell, the girls grow up looking for a way to separate themselves from their past. Sally (Sandra Bullock) longs to be “normal,” and Gillian (Nicole Kidman) longs to abandon herself to a passion that will leave her dizzy. Sally marries a man she adores and has two children before he is killed in an accident. Devastated, she blames the family curse that, according to legend, results in the early death of any man who loves an Owens woman. Gillian ends up with Jimmy Angelof, an abusive man. When Sally comes to rescue her, they accidentally kill Jimmy. Using their aunts’ book of spells, they bring him back, only to kill him again when he attacks them. They bury him in the back yard, and think they are safe. But then a policeman comes looking for Jimmy, who is not as departed as they thought.

Bullock and Kidman are ideally cast as the sisters who are very different but very devoted. Dianne Wiest and Stockard Channing are delightful as the wry but wise and loving aunts, bedecked in Victorian lace. It is a pretty movie to watch, but so uneven in tone and theme that it is ultimately more frustrating than fun. We make a bargain when we go to a movie — we will accept the movie’s premise, and the film-makers won’t change the rules on us. That bargain is not kept in this movie, and the audience ends up feeling cheated.

Parental concerns include sexual references, themes of loss, tension and violence (including a scary scene with Jimmy attempting to “brand” Gillian as his possession). Some parents will also be concerned about the theme of witchcraft (benign or otherwise) and about the scenes of bringing back Jimmy from the dead and of his spirit’s possession of one of the characters.

Related Tags:

Not specified

The Enchanted Cottage

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:16 am

For Valentine’s Day, try this romantic classic.

Mrs. Minnett (Mildred Natwick), a widow, owns a small cottage that she rents out to honeymoon couples. Some people believe there is a magic about the house that keeps the couples safe and happy. Laura (Dorothy McGuire) is a plain girl who comes to work in the house because she responds to its special feeling. Oliver (Robert Young), rich and careless, comes to see the house and reserves it for his honeymoon. But before he can be married, he is called off to war and seriously injured. He comes to the cottage alone and bitter, to retreat from the world. Wanting to shield himself from his family and his former fiancee, he impulsively proposes to Laura, who accepts, but does not tell him that she loves him. He is so self-absorbed that he does not even wonder why she agrees.

After the wedding, they go back to the cottage, embarassed and uncomfortable. But the cottage works its enchantment, and they realize that they have become beautiful and whole, and deeply in love. They live in blissful happiness, confiding only in Mrs. Minnett and their blind friend. But when Oliver’s family arrives, they cannot see the transformation. Oliver and Laura are crushed, until they realize that the enchantment was love, and that it would always make them beautiful to one another.

Like the magic in the story, this movie is only for believers, but there are many cynics who have a special affection for what can only be called its enchantment. As Antoine de Saint-Exupery says in The Little Prince, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” Many children will not have the patience for this story, but others will find it one of their favorite films.

Questions for Kids:

How do the writer and director help the viewer believe in the magic that Oliver and Laura feel?

Why doesn’t Oliver want to see his family?

Do people in love see each other differently than other see them? Can you think of other movies or books where this happens?

Related Tags:

Classic Romance