Category Archives: 2003

Movie: Brother Bear (2003)

Posted on by
Reply

Brother Bear is an animated Disney movie released in 2003. It is part of Disney’s post-Renaissance phase from about 1997 to 2008, a period of films marked by experimentation with the Disney Renaissance formula, most noticeably a move away from European fairy tales and the “Broadway musical” format. During this era, Disney sought out a broader base of source material and inspiration, drawing from novels, non-European fairy tales, Japanese animation, and genres such as sci-fi and action/adventure, and diversifying their casts of characters. Brother Bear is very much in this experimental style. Deciding to set their story in prehistoric Stone-Age Alaska/Canada/some northern part of North America, and drawing upon the folklore of what would be their distant descendants (Inuits), there is not a single main character who is racialized as white aside from two comic relief moose. Most notably, it is one of the very few Disney movies to have neither a villain nor any kind of love interest or romantic subplot (Inside Out is another). That’s not to say that the movie is boring by any means — the story is one of the most dramatic, featuring major character death and near-fratricide. The emotional core of the movie is platonic love, including the motivations of the movie’s main antagonist.

It also helps that the main character, Kenai, is highly unsympathetic (he starts out as an immature daredevil with fairly toxic notions of masculinity) and most of the movie is focused on his personal growth. He commits a crime that so offends Nature (the “Great Spirits”) that he ends up being cursed with the body of a bear. His one saving grace, however, and a major motif of this movie, is that he would do anything for his brothers.

In the advertising of this film, the filmmakers had multiple choices about how to pitch this story, and I think they settled on a “fun, family-friendly romp about understanding what’s really important in life” playing up Kenai’s bear form, Koda (the precocious bear cub who adopts Kenai and goes on a Character Growth Road Trip with him), and the comic relief moose as the main characters. That’s arguably a reasonable way to interpret the core of this film, but ultimately I think it’s plainly incorrect. The emotional core of this movie (to me) is three brothers whose love for each other transcends life, death, distance, and form. To leave Denahi out of publicity materials — as was repeatedly done with this movie — even though he is narrator, antagonist, and has one of the most moving emotional arcs in the film, is to misunderstand or misrepresent what this film is.

What Brother Bear says it’s about: talking animals. What Brother Bear is actually about: Human characters never depicted in publicity materials; gratuitous shots of Alaskan wilderness

Motifs

This movie is littered with recurring motifs that create a cohesive arc from start to finish. The first is the question of man vs. monster. This theme is one that was earlier explored in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, where Quasimodo and Frollo are foils that represent ostensible monstrosity but inner humanity (Quasimodo) or its opposite, ostensible humanity and inner monstrosity (Frollo). The same goes for Beast and Gaston in Beauty and the Beast.

Who is the monster and who is the man?

Here, however, the motif is overloaded in multiple ways. In addition to contrasting with “monster”, the “man” part of the dichotomy also contrasts with “boy” and portrays this story as a straightforward coming-of-age story for Kenai. The “monster” part of the dichotomy contrasts with “man” in two ways: the bear as a monster in the frightening world where a run-in with Nature can leave you dead (man vs. monster as a man vs. nature conflict), and the inner monster that describes the ways in which humans fail to embody humanity. Kenai shifts through man, bear, and monster identities throughout the movie, although it’s only at the end that he has the maturity to truly see the identities for what they are.

This thematic motif is given visual form with the repeated image of the human handprint and the bear pawprint overlaid on top. The human handprint is a symbol in Kenai’s culture of having attained manhood (as opposed to boyhood); the awe of Stone Age cave paintings including the handprint and the depiction of a man vs. bear hunt (a beautiful moment in the movie) is itself a testament to the achievements of man (as opposed to nature). Throughout the movie, however, Kenai is confronted with the image of his own pawprint that he leaves behind that shuts him out of both kinds of manhood (adulthood and personhood). Also, I should note that the image of linked hands is a symbol of both humanity but also fraternity (familial love) — this echoes what was done with hands pressed together in Tarzan.

The way hands and the man vs. monster contrast are used throughout the film

That brings us to another motif: sibling love. In particular, there are many brother relationships in this film, where, on the surface, the brothers are obnoxious and irritating to each other, but also at the end of the day willing to go to the ends of the earth for each other. This dynamic is present throughout the opening scene in very subtle, unremarked-upon ways, where Kenai gets on his brothers’ nerves (particularly middle brother Denahi), but is also constantly being rescued by them, even at great risk to themselves. This dynamic of combined irritation and devotion recurs throughout the film.

Finally, there is the motif of “seeing through another’s eyes.” This phrase appears in the lyrics of a song, and is also visually represented via a gimmick in the format of the film itself, where the film changes its aspect ratio and color palette about one-third of the way through, after Kenai wakes up as a bear. Literally, the world looks different to him (and to the viewer) after he has been transformed. It is also significant that Kenai’s transformation not only turns him into a bear (and gives him a chance to see his own actions through the eyes of other creatures) but also forces him into the role of an older brother, a role that requires maturity from him and also helps him understand his older brother better.

Music

Brother Bear‘s soundtrack is an attempt to partially escape the musical format of 90s Disney movies. It has original songs with lyrics, but they are for the most part sung by various musicians who serve as a narrator, rather than by the characters within the film. The composer and lyricist here is Phil Collins, whose lyrics are very different from the Broadway musical style of the Disney Renaissance lyricists like Howard Ashman, Tim Rice, or Steven Schwartz. If you’re looking for clever wordplay like “As a specimen, yes I’m intimidating” or rhyming “Adonis” with “croissant is”… this movie doesn’t have that. It instead has lyrics that sound like the immediate thoughts of the characters whose mind they’re meant to give voice to, very often monosyllabically and with meter, but often no rhyme (example: “This has to be the most beautiful, the most peaceful, place I’ve ever been to. It’s nothing like I’ve ever seen before.”).

Phil Collins’s songwriting and lyrics are extremely polarizing. At one end, Phil Collins is considered basically a talentless songwriter with a grating voice and musical style and painfully basic lyrics. At the other, his voice is considered unique and his songs catchy or even powerful. I’m more at the second end — I think his songs work for this movie, with the instrumental pieces building up dramatic moments, and his lyrics delivering raw emotional punch in the form of someone directly expressing their feelings. And even someone who hates the sound of Phil Collins’s voice will be spared some pain — half of the songs are not sung by him, which gives the movie more vocal variety than Phil Collins’s previous collaboration with Disney, Tarzan.

Caveats

As much as I love Brother Bear, it is a film that I have difficulty recommending without disclaimers. The first disclaimer (mentioned earlier) is the comic relief moose. This movie objectively would have been better without them. They add nothing to the movie aside from padding some scenes. There was a weak rationale for their continued existence in the movie (apparently, the makers debated back and forth for a really long time whether to keep them in) in that they are brothers and fit the whole “brothers” dynamic that keeps recurring throughout the film, and come in at a key moment in the film to remind Koda of what it means to be brothers. It’s… very weak, though, and I think the movie would be more economical and much stronger without them.

The second disclaimer is that this movie leans pretty heavily into a New Age aesthetic. The focus on Native American spirituality, the heavy-handed moralizing about how important it is to See Through Other People’s Eyes, including the fact that animals have the same moral worth as human beings (just don’t think about all the fish that the bears murder…) can be very grating.

Still, overall, as long as you’re capable of mentally erasing the moose from this film through sheer willpower, I think Brother Bear is a forgotten movie that’s worth a second look. It’s a movie from a period of time when Disney was actually doing some interesting experimentation, and overall the movie provides some great moments that are rare in Disney movies before or since.

Movie: Good Bye Lenin! (2003)

Posted on by
Reply

The protagonist Alex lives with his family in East Berlin, the capital of East Germany. His mother Christiane, in reaction to her husband Robert taking refuge in West Germany by himself, has become an ardent supporter of socialism. On October 7, 1989—the 40th anniversary of the founding of East Germany—Christiane suffers from a heart attack and falls into a coma. It seems like she will never wake up again, but she miraculously wakes up in the hospital eight months later. However, by this time, the Berlin Wall had already collapsed, the socialist system had disappeared from East Germany, and it was a matter of time until the East and West were unified. Alex looks after his mother when she returns home; since the doctor says that, “she might not live if she suffers from another great shock,” Alex works desperately to continue acting as if East Germany’s socialist system is unchanged by involving everyone around. During this time, the mother confesses that Alex’s biological father did not cast them away to seek refuge, but that Christiane broke her promise to follow Robert, who escaped to the West side while she stayed in East Berlin; she also confesses that she did not show Alex and his older sister the letters their father had sent them. Christiane lives for three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although Alex thinks he was able to hide the truth from his mother well, the movie ends with Christiane possibly knowing the truth.

Good Bye Lenin! is a comedy with underlying satire and wit. The people who lived in East Berlin before the collapse of the Berlin Wall longed for freedom to the degree of, “I’d give my life for it.” After the collapse of the wall, they witnessed economic chaos, unemployment, social chaos, and the loss of the things that they took pride in before, and they realized the bitter truth that free society was not as rosy as they imagined. However, the undercurrent theme flowing through this movie is about how someone reacts when they realize that what they believed to be true is wrong. This movie does not show regret or blame anyone. The general citizen will believe in and live with the propaganda given by a socialist system, but when society suddenly changes, they try hard to adapt. This movie depicts with light humor how Alex and the people around him deal with the change, but also depicts a desire for his mother to die peacefully believing in old values. One reason this movie was a big hit in Germany may be the social background that, despite the sudden change in values and the chaos that came with it, Germany succeeded in unification and accomplished stability. It was painful then, but 20 years later, it has been long enough for Germans today to look back on the chaos with humor.

I admit that the use of satire and laughter to depict the sudden change in the system is a worthy approach, but unfortunately only the first half of this movie can be enjoyed without distraction; in the second half of this long movie, the story becomes boring by repeatedly trying the same thing over and over. The great efforts of Alex’s goodwill become misdirected, and his girlfriend urges, “How long will you keep this up? Honestly tell your mother the truth,” while his older sister angrily fusses that, “Continuing this lifestyle is full of stress.” As I watch Alex struggle all day long despite everything for this lie, the movie gradually loses its humor. Moreover, it becomes unclear what the director is targeting with the satire. Does he wish to express a bitter sentiment about the Cold War ending? Or in the worst case, some may think the message is, “Aw, socialism was better. East Germany was a great country, even winning as many gold medals in the Olympics as America and USSR.”

However, we should not forget that, behind the Olympic glory of East Germany, there was systematic use of drugs by the nation. Furthermore, drugs were given to athletes without their consent. A prime example is East Germany’s shot putter Heidi Krieger. The steroid hormones that she was repeatedly given without her knowledge damaged her health and forced her to retire from competition; Krieger now lives as a man by the name of Andreas Krieger after a sex-change surgery. In a 2004 interview for the New York Times, he expressed the sentiment, “I’m happy that I can live as a man in today’s society, but I am very angry that I got into this situation because I was given drugs by the government without my consent.”

I admit that sophisticated technique is required to keep the intention of the satire clear when making a comedy, but I still would have liked to see the older sister and girlfriend actually have an effect on Alex’s behavior rather than be ignored. I would guess that there are many in the audience who become fed up with Alex’s behavior by the end. This feeling stops the laughter.

日本語→

Movie: Les Invasions barbares – The Barbarian Invasions (2003)

Posted on by
Reply

Director Denys Arcand, who made The Decline of the American Empire in 1986, made this sequel, The Barbarian Invasions, 17 years later. Unlike how The Decline of the American Empire focused on the school dean Dominique, The Barbarian Invasions focuses on the lives of Rémy and Louise, but the main characters are Rémy and Louise’s son Sébastien and Diane’s daughter Nathalie.

Sébastien, who works vigorously and earns a lot of money as an investor in London, is informed that his father Rémy is sick with cancer, so he and his fiancée Gaëlle return to his hometown Montreal. Since his parents are divorced, Sébastien doesn’t have many memories of living with his father, but upon his mother’s request, he decides to make his father’s last days enjoyable.

This hospital that is ruled by labor unions is very inefficient, and the patients are put into the hallways even though there are many vacant hospital rooms. Utilizing the power of money, Sébastien secures a private room for Rémy; he invites his father’s former coworkers—Diane, Dominique, Pierre, and Claude—and the private room becomes something like a class reunion and a party. Pierre, who despised the idea of being married, is now married with a young wife, is working hard every day to raise a small child, and really looks happy. Claude, a gay man who had uncommitted relationships with many different men, seems to be living a stable life with a partner. Sébastien bribes former students to come to the hospital and tell Rémy how excellent of a teacher he was, which delights Rémy.

Rémy’s cancer is already terminal; it cannot be treated, and Rémy suffers from pain. Sébastien plans to ease the pain with heroin, so Diane introduces him to her daughter Nathalie, who uses heroin. Sébastien hires Nathalie to care for his father by administering him heroin. Through the course of this, Sébastien and Nathalie become attracted to each other; Nathalie decides to stop using heroin and follows through.

Since Rémy approved of the socialization of Quebec and supported the hospital’s labor union, he made up his mind to not complain about the poor medical treatment he got as a result of what he supported, but what gave him peace in his final moments was his son, who succeeded in the capitalist society that Rémy so denied. With death close at hand, he sadly realizes that, even though he tried hard and played around with many things, he didn’t accomplish anything; but he unexpectedly finds that his best achievement is his child, whom he didn’t realize until then was an achievement, and passes away peacefully.

Quebec is unique within Canada. This area was historically a French settlement in the 17th century, but it was occupied by the British army since the Seven Years’ War in the 18th century. USA, independent from Great Britain since 1776, invited Quebec to join the United States since they understood the anti-British sentiment present in Quebec, but Quebec decided to remain in Canada after careful consideration. However, Quebec continued to oppose Canadian federalism after Canada’s independence, and in Quebec, French is the only official language; even now, a little less than half the residents of Quebec insists on independence from Canada.

The socialization of Quebec that progressed since the 1960s and did not rely on violence was called the “Quiet Revolution,” and was founded on nationalism and social democracy (leftist thought); it established anti-Catholic laws, socialistic medical insurance policies, and strong labor standard laws that gave people the right to go on strike. Canada is the model child of the Commonwealth of Nations, and incorporates mild socialism, like Europe, regarding issues such as medical care and working conditions, but Quebec took it one step further.

Since director Denys Arcand was born in 1941, he was greatly influenced by the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. The characters of The Decline of the American Empire and The Barbarian Invasions are generally the same generation as or just slightly younger than director Denys Arcand, since they were in their forties in 1986. In the 1980s, this generation wondered what the doctrine for life would be, since Catholicism and capitalism were both weakening, and Marxism turned out to be disappointing; but capitalism remained healthier than they thought it would, and after all, family—which tends to be overlooked—is the core of our life. This is the point of this movie. All things considered, I am surprised that the six actors are able to star together in both movies. In 17 years, someone could have died, someone may have resigned as an actor, or the negotiation of the performance fee for the actors may not be easy due to the status of the actor having gone way up or down, but everyone seems to be in good spirits and gives a good performance. I think as actors, they recognize the value of this movie, and that director Denys Arcand has the power to attract actors.

日本語→