OSCARS 2023: The 2023 Oscar Nominated Documentary Short Films

The Elephant Whisperers (2022)

Set in the Mudumalai National Park in South India, “The Elephant Whisperers” focuses on Bomman and Belli, two members of an indigenous tribe who have devoted their lives to caring to elephants. They are officially licensed by park officials to insure the protection and care of these animals. They adopted an orphan elephant named Raghu when he was a baby, in poor health and malnourished. The two soon form a strong bond with Raghu, considering him part of their family. Later, another orphan named Ammu joins their tribe, which initially leads to some tension between the two pachyderms. Yet the special connection between humans and animals sees them through this difficult time. 

“The Elephant Whisperers” is both the longest and the slowest of the nominated shorts. There are definitely moments here worth seeing. Elephants are extraordinary animals that I am very fond of. Seeing them pick up bells with their versatile trucks or interact with their human friends are often touching. The bond Bomman and Belli share with Raghu and Ammu is truly something special. Seeing the pure trust these massive animals have with their humans is very inspiring. Plus Ammu is just really cute, a fuzzy little guy that has a youthful energy. 

Unfortunately, “The Elephant Whisperers” is so focused on its observational goals that it doesn't have much narrative drive. This is a documentary very much devoted to just watching people go about their lives, interacting and discussing their beliefs. The pacing is glacial and not a whole lot happens over its forty minute run time. About the only truly driving events in the story are the forest fires during the summer months and a time when Bomman and Belli are separated from Raghu. I'm not opposed to documentaries that simply depict normal life as it unfolds. (In so much that a life spent with elephants is “normal.”) Yet “The Elephant Whisperers,” with its soft musical score and gentle characters, mostly just made me sleepy. The strongest parts of this short could've been conveyed within ten or fifteen minutes, making “The Elephant Whisperers” feels needlessly padded out at times. [6/10]

Haulout (2022)

“Haulout” follows a man living alone in a ramshackle shack on a desolate beach in Siberia. It seems to be a solitary existence until they arrive. Overnight, literally every inch of the beach is filled up with 95,000 walruses. This affords the researcher an up close and personal chance to study these animals. It also means he's trapped on this beach, surrounded on all sides by huge animals with pointed tusks. This is the life of marine biologist Maxim Chakilev, who has been doing this for a decade. The documentary observes him as he takes notes on the creatures and goes about his day-to-day business in this utterly inhospitable location. 

“Haulout” features what is assuredly one of the most unforgettable shots out of all of this year's Oscar-nominated films. After seeming totally alone for the first few minutes, Chakilev is awoken in the middle of the night by a cacophony of animal grunts. He steps up to a window, turns on a light, and is suddenly surrounded on all sides by horny walruses. It's quite a sight, emphasized shortly afterwards by an aerial drone shot of the utterly packed beach. Harrowing as the situation is – we see the walruses jab each other with those massive tusks – I couldn't help but react with laughter. Chakilev is a totally deadpan protagonist, silent and unshakable. (With his handlebar mustache, he looks a little like a walrus too.) The walruses lock eyes with him or wiggle into his personal space, causing him to push the huge animals back with a broom. It's such an absurd situation, being knee-deep in the Walrus Pit, the kind of unlikely scenario you'd never expect to see but is nevertheless totally real.

As quietly hilarious as “Haulout” can be, this is not just a documentary about the wonders of the natural world. In fact, it has quite a sad ending. After the walrus orgy ends, Chakilev wanders the beach, documenting the dead bodies left behind. This scene gives you a clear idea of how massive these animals can be but also how vulnerable they are, as Chakilev finds a walrus baby clinging to its mother's corpse. The title card reveals, unsurprisingly, that this mass gathering of bodies is a result of climate change. Darkly funny and filled with one-of-a-kind visual, “Haulout” makes it point succinctly and powerfully with no narration and little dialogue. [9/10]

How Do You Measure a Year? (2021)

After getting nominated for the widely loathed “When We Were Bullies” in 2022, documentarian Jay Rosenblatt is back this year. Every year on her birthday, from the time she was two until she was eighteen, Jay would interview his daughter, Ella. Each year, he asks her the same questions. Over the course of a half-hour, we watch Ella grow up from a little girl to a young woman. We see her interests change and evolve, along with her outlook and opinions on the world. She develops a love for animals and singing, showtunes and sign language, while frequently referencing the sometimes testy relationship kids have with their parents. 

I was a little kinder to “When We Were Bullies” than most people seemed to be. I don't know if I have a more charitable opinion of Rosenblatt or whatever. I do think “How Do You Measure a Year?” is a pretty cute premise for a documentary. It gets a lot of mileage just out of Ella's natural adorableness. As always, truth comes from the mouth of babes, as little Ella says all sorts of amusing, baffling, unexpected things. Watching her grow up into a little girl with an interest in singing and dreams of stardom is absolutely charming. When she enters her “Hannah Montana” stage, or develops a fondness for musicals, it reminds me of everything kids go through. We each have those moments of intense fascination for some bit of pop culture debris or another.

Seeing these yearly clips back to back also gives us a microscopic peek at how people grow up. One moment, Ella is a care-free little kid and the next, she's a moody teenager who seems barely disinterested in talking. Yet, as she ages into a young adult and prepares to put this yearly ritual behind, she gets a bit sentimental too. It's cute, watching those changes happen and seeing Ella grow up so totally within the spans of a few minutes. I don't know if “How Do You Measure a Year?” really gets into its chosen topics in any particular depth. Certainly more could have been done with the idea. But it's also a lot shorter than “Boyhood” while touching on a lot of the same concepts. [7/10]

The Martha Mitchell Effect (2022)

The fourth of the nominated documentary shorts takes us back to the days of the Nixon administration. It focuses in on Martha Mitchell, the outspoken wife of Attorney General John N. Mitchell. After Mitchell joins the Nixon cabinet, his wife quickly gains a reputation for speaking openly and candidly about political topics. This makes her a media celebrity. Despite initially being a fan of the president, even working on his re-election campaign, Martha is soon made privy to a plot to undermine the election process. Upon speaking out, she is detained, labeled insane in the press, demonized, and soon proven to be right.

The word “gaslighting” is certainly one of the most discussed terms of our time, as women the world over finally have a word to describe behavior that has long been observed. The story of Martha Mitchell allows us to see a media-wide version of gaslighting. Martha Mitchell was arrested by government agents, drugged, and left with bruises on her body. Stories leak to the press about how she's mentally unwell or an alcoholic. The men around her claim she has a serious, but unspecified, problem. Of course, Mitchell's claims about Watergate were true and she was later justified, becoming a beloved figure again. To the point that the title of this documentary is taken from an observed psychological effect, where someone deemed delusional is later proven to be right.

It's a good story and one told well here. Directors Anne Alvergue and Debra McClutchy do a good job of assembling archive footage into a compelling whole. The way news footage, vintage audio recordings, more recent interviews, and clips from television are put together are clever. A colorful, forthright figure like Martha Mitchell does make a strong protagonist to build a documentary around. It does bother me a little that she was fine, even supportive, of Richard Nixon's policies until his paranoia started to effect her personally. But it sounds like she came around to the right side of history eventually, so I guess it's okay. [7/10]

Strangers at the Gates (2022)

Set in Muncie, Indiana, “Strangers at the Gates” revolves around the local mosque and Islamic community center. It tells the story of Richard “Mac” McKinney, a former Marine who developed an intense hatred of Muslims after returning home from years spent overseas in Afghanistan. Behind the back of his beloved wife and stepdaughter, McKinney begins to plot a hate crime. He builds a bomb and intends to blow up the building. Before committing this heinous act, he visits the mosque and is surprisingly welcomed with open arms. Slowly, his viewpoint begins to change and he reconsiders his plan. 

“Strangers at the Gates” has a nice message. It shows how a person can change from being full of hate to being more accepting and peaceful, just through simple acts of kindness. However, the short goes about telling this story in an incredibly frustrating way. It slingshots between tonal extremes. The Muslim families and members are presented as always sunny, loving, and kind. Anytime McKinney is interviewed, the music gets dark and suspenseful. The filmmaker always frames McKinney to look like a serial killer and we get several clips of his ex-wife being on the verge of tears. It really seems like McKinney went through with his plan to become a mass murderer. Of course, this is not the case. After being accepted by the members of the mosque, McKinney abandoned his plan, converted to Muslim, and now attempts to put his hateful past behind him. 

This is not only an incredibly manipulative way to present this story, it also does not delve into these events with the depth they deserve. McKinney outright attributes his Islamophobia to his time spent in the military. The documentary never gets into how the military trains young recruits – McKinney was 18 when he joined the marines – to see other human beings as subhuman things worthy of hate and extermination in any meaningful way. The filmmakers seem to approach McKinney's initial intense hatred of Muslims and his plan to become a mass murderer with a lack of gravity. Moreover, the local Muslim community accepting him and even forgiving him is shown as nothing but a light-hearted story. Surely some mosque members were terrified to hear that this man wanted to kill them all and nearly went through with it? Moreover, do we really want to send the message that the onus to forgive hatred and prejudice is on those discriminated against? “Strangers at the Gate” has a powerful idea at its center and could have explored these themes in a way that would've revealed a lot about American culture. Instead, it went in a shallow, feel-good direction and burdened itself with a misleading structure. [5/10]

Director Report Card: Joe Johnston (1995)

4. Jumanji

In 1981, Chris Van Allsburg wrote and illustrated a 32-page children's book called “Jumanji.” It was a simple story about a magical, jungle-themed board game that brought dangerous animals into the kid's home. That probably doesn't seem like a very cinematic story but producer Peter Guber disagreed. After meeting Van Allsburg, Guber began to develop a film adaptation of “Jumanji.” Though Joe Johnston hadn't had a hit in a while, I guess having “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” on your resume – and showing a clear aptitude for effects-driven family films – meant something. Johnston would secure a starring role from Robin Willaims and “Jumanji” would become a big success, earning enough at the box office to be the seventh highest grossing film of 1995.

In 1869, two boys bury a mysterious box in the muddy grounds that will someday become Brantford, New Hampshire. One hundred years later, Alan Perrish – the bullied son of the town's leading employer, a shoe-factory owner – uncovers the box. It contains what appears to be a board game called Jumanji. Upon playing it with Sarah, a girl he likes, the board unleashes giant African bats on the house and sucks Alan inside. In 1995, orphans Judy and Peter are moving into the former Perrish home in the now impoverished Brantford. They discover Jumanji, thinking it's a simple board game. That's before they unleashes giant mosquitoes and a lion into the house. The same action returns Alan, now an adult who has grown up in a wild jungle. Realizing they must complete the game to undo this nightmare, they find the now adult Sarah and attempt to survive each new horror Jumanji unleashes.

With Van Allsburg's “Jumanji” having such a simplistic story, the makers of the cinematic “Jumanji” had to get creative. The trio of credited screenwriters realized the set-up could basically be a clothesline on which to hang a series of special effects sequence. This is essentially what “Jumanji” is, a collection of episodes devoted to what happens when various jungle animals and fantastical horrors are unleashed on a small New England town. This doesn't sound like an especially deep story and it isn't. However, “Jumanji” keeps barreling forward, moving the characters – and the audience with them – from one set-piece to the next. It's an exciting film that rarely slows down long enough for a viewer to notice how thin its script truly is.

What I really like about “Jumanji,” and what I might've responded to when watching the film as a child, is that it plays like a kid-friendly horror flick repeatedly throughout its run time. From its opening minutes, Johnston's film is playing with this style. The first scene is set during a rain storm at night, a pair of boys frantically trying to escape the thunderous drumming. From there, we have an attack involving wild bats. Huge mosquitoes swoop around and attempt to suck people's blood, resulting in multiple off-screen injuries. The sequence where a lion appears in the attic, its tail and paws crossing the keys of a piano, is surprisingly ominous. That horror-lite atmosphere peaks during a sequence when a group of creepy-crawly giant spiders attack our heroes. Johnston's direction, with its shot of bats ominously eeking in the dark or lions sneering out of an attic, is surprisingly tense at times.

Another reason to like “Jumanji” is that a lot of creativity is on display. The writers of the film have fun with the concept of transporting a jungle adventure into a suburban town. The creatures on display aren't just lions, elephants, and rhinos. Though we never see the Jumanji that exist inside the game board, it's clearly not a normal African jungle. Rather, it's a fantastical nightmare version of a jungle. Aside from the giant insects, the game also brings creeping vines that shoot venomous barbs into our world. That sequence concludes with a giant, Audrey II-style bud that is especially neat. Later, those vines transform the Perrish house into a foggy jungle. When a monsoon is summoned, water floods the house. When quicksand is summoned, Alan sinks into the floors.

It is easy to see why Joe Johnston was attracted to this job. This was another opportunity to balance gee-whiz adventure with cutting edge special effects. The effects are unquestionably the star of “Jumanji.” Lots of elaborate puppetry and animatronics are employed. The evil creeping vines are my favorite, an excellent example of a long overlooked and rarely well executed horror movie premise. A moment where the vines grab a police car and snap it in half is especially impressive. The giant spiders are also fantastically brought to life, their skittering and slimy appearance enough to send arachnophobes into a panic. Honestly, the alligators that appear in the monsoon sequence might genuinely be the scariest creatures in the film though, all fearsome sweeping tales and massive snapping jaws. The film sacrifices the absolute realism of the lion to give the elaborate puppet some personality, in the form an amusingly expressive face. seamlessly interacting with the actors.

However, “Jumanji's” commitment to cutting edge effects also means it features some of 1995's best CGI. Granted, some of these effects have aged better than others. The mosquitoes look pretty cool and even interact well with their surroundings, especially in the scene where they attack the kids while hiding inside a car. However, other elements are less convincing. The floor turning to quicksand looks pretty cheesy. The animals in the stampede obviously do not pass muster. The hyper-violent and mischievous monkeys look terrible. Their jagged fur does not look real. Neither do their faces, which are so artificial looking as to be unintentionally unnerving. I wish the film hadn't made these critters the stars of so many scenes. I will give the CGI team credit for giving the simian terrors some personality. There's a cute moment when the leader of the monkey troop tells the others to disperse in different directions.

Even though Johnston seems most focused on the special effects, “Jumanji” does attempt to include some sappy Spielberg-ian themes. “Jumanji's” scope includes the entire town of Brantford. When Alan disappears in the sixties, everyone assumes his dad killed him. This causes the shoe factory to close down, which causes the entire town's economy to collapse. In a cartoonish touch, huge stretches of the town are occupied solely by the homeless. Yet Alan's relationship with his dad takes precedence over the Decline of the Small Town. The father only believes confrontation can resolve problems and doesn't want Alan to be weak. Later, Alan finds himself attempting to pass this approach on to Peter, which he immediately regrets. (It's no mistake that the thing from “Jumanji” Alan fears the most is a Great White Hunter played by the same actor as his dad.) By the end, the town is saved and the Daddy Issues are put to rest. It seems pretty out of place, is my point.

Also out of place, at least some of the times, is the humor. The jokes in “Jumanji” that work the best are the ones that arise out of the characters' interactions. The way Judy spins wild yarns about her parents' death to anyone who will listen. Or Alan reacting to the modern world after leaving Jumanji behind. However, too often the jokes in “Jumanji” are overly gimmicky, winking too hard at the camera. More than once, something wacky happens on-screen – monkeys drive by on a police motorcycle, for one example – and a character has a smart-ass comment about it. An extended sequence in a ransacked shopping center is overly broad and wacky, featuring some random “Home Alone” style booby traps. One scene even has a character breaking the fourth wall with a look into the camera. It's a little overdone and takes me out of the movie.

Oddly, Robin Williams is not the main source of comic relief in the film. Williams actually restrains his trademark manic energy throughout most of the movie. Save for his earliest scenes, where Robin tears through the town in wildman clothes, he's mostly reacting in quietly terrified fear or bemusement to what happens around him. Which isn't to say Williams doesn't get some laughs in. He performs some very small but extremely funny moments here and there. Such as his reaction to being sucked into the house's floorboards, or when he tries to schoo a giant spider away with just his breath. Despite being less frenzied than usual, Robin Williams is still ideally cast as an overgrown kid in a man's body.

Judy and Peter have their own arc too, the kids coming to terms with their parents' untimely deaths over the course of their adventure. It's another one of the film's forced-in emotional beats. However, the talented actors in the part help salvage that. A young Kristen Dunst plays Judy. Though she's mostly there to react to special effects, Dunst's sense of humor and ability to depict both wide-eyed wonder and sarcastic cynicism makes Judy into more of a character. Peter is played by Bradley Pierce – who also voiced Tails in “Sonic SatAM” which is, ya know, very important to me – and also does a good job. The kid spends about half the movie under extensive make-up, after the board game punishing him for cheating by turning him into a monkey humanoid. It could've been easy for the kid to act under that but he succeeds.

When I nit-pick about actors in the film making dry comments about something wacky that just happened on-screen, I'm mostly complaining about Bonnie Hunt as the adult Sarah. This is no fault of Hunt, who actually gives a solid performance. In the scenes conveying panic, such as when Alan re-appears for the first time in twenty-five years, invalidating all the years of therapy she underwent, are very good. She also has decent chemistry with Willaims, when the two get to bickering. David Alan Grier has a thankless job as the film's straight man, the cop who is constantly battered around by the film's crazy events. Grier at least gets laughs out of it though. Jonathan Hyde is Van Pelt, the big game hunter and the film's human antagonist. Hyde clearly enjoys hamming it up at the unhinged Victorian stereotype. It's to the film's credit that the character isn't made into a goofy joke but allowed to remain intimidating.

”Jumanji” was a frequent presence in my childhood VHS player. I was so fond of the film, that I actually wrote up a detailed description of a video game adaptation for the Sega Genesis, with levels and boss battles based on the various incidents in the film. (This is a testament to my childhood nerdiness though I'm really surprised the film wasn't actually made into a 16-bit platformer, as it has all the elements necessary.) While that didn't exist, there were a few spin-offs. An animated series ran from 1996 to 1999. Despite ugly character designs, it was a well-written and fascinatingly bizarre show. Naturally, there was a real “Jumanji” board game created. I had it as a kid and was disappointed by how convoluted the rules were. More films would eventually follow as well. As for the original, it's no masterpiece and is a fairly shallow film in many ways. Yet it's fun too and fun counts for a lot. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Tim Burton (2019)

19. Dumbo

Look, I'm a big fan of the Disney Animated Features and I'm obviously fond of big budget, special effects filled spectacle. But this wave of big budget remakes Disney has made of their various classic cartoons? At best, they are usually deeply unnecessary exercise. At worst, they range from nearly shot-for-shot remakes to films that actively betray the themes of the original story. Tim Burton can take some blame for starting this mess, as the billion dollar success of his “Alice in Wonderland” urged Disney on. They show no signs of slowing down, as 2019 alone sees them rolling out quote-unquote live action versions of “Aladdin,” “The Lion King,” “Lady and the Tramp,” a sequel to “Maleficent,” and Tim Burton's “Dumbo.” Considering my obvious lack of enthusiasm for his prior stab at this, it was hard to get excited for Burton remaking an old Disney cartoon again.

The original “Dumbo” runs barely over an hour and contains no major human characters. This means Burton's “Dumbo” has to expand upon the plot greatly. The basic are still the same: Mrs. Jumbo gifts the circus with a new baby elephant. The new baby, quickly named Dumbo, is born with giant ears that get him mocked. However, when he grasps a lucky feather, he can use his huge ears to fly, making him a star act of the circus. Soon, he uses his ability to rescue his mother. Added to this plot line is recently returned war veteran/amputee Holt Farrier and his recently motherless kids, Milly and Joe. The kids have a special bond with the little elephant. When news of the act reaches millionaire theme park owner V.A. Vandevere, he purchases the entire circus. Vandevere's intentions are less than benevolent though.

Many of these live action remakes Disney have rolled out are largely shot on green screens. This blurs the line between live action and animation, as Jon Favreau's “Jungle Book” was computer generated save for one actor while his upcoming “Lion King” is entirely CGI. Burton's “Alice in Wonderland” largely depended on real actors performing on sets made in a computer. Burton's “Dumbo” takes a similar approach. At first, this is hugely jarring. Seeing real people perform before clearly unreal surroundings, sometimes wearing clearly CGI outfits, makes everything look plastic-y and weightless. However, as “Dumbo” goes on and the story grows increasingly surreal, this starts to work in the film's favor. Maybe “Dumbo” is suppose to look artificial, to further facilitate a dream-like and fantastical atmosphere.

Burton's “Alice in Wonderland” was depressingly free of his stylistic trademarks. At first, his “Dumbo” looks much the same, as it joylessly marches through the original's story beats but stripped of their whimsy. However, once Vandevere enters the film and the story moves to his Dreamland park, things pick up. Dreamland includes a hall of horrors, inhabited by regular animals dressed up as fictional monsters. Shots of a “werewolf” howling in the fog or a crocodile outfitted with fake horns – a possible slurpasaur homage? – reminds us of Tim Burton's earlier films. A Robby-like robot appears rather randomly, as does a highly anachronistic mechanical hand. His take on the “Pink Elephants on Parade” sequence, performed entirely in bubbles and partially seen reflected in Dumbo's eyes, is a similarly dream-like sequence. It's good to know that Burton can occasionally grab some of the spark that made him interesting in the first place.

Even in the cartoon, Dumbo didn't talk. Creating a film where your title character is both silent and created in a computer presents some challenge. Amazingly, Dumbo in 2019's “Dumbo” works. First off, he's genuinely adorable. He doesn't look like a real elephant but he's an awfully cute approximation. More importantly, the film captures Dumbo's vulnerability and his connection to his mother, making the audience want to see him succeed. A flying elephant doesn't look real. That's where the film's surreal tone comes in handy. However, the scenes of Dumbo flying are still exciting and inspiring. As if to make the audience relate even more to Dumbo, Burton's film often assumes his point of view.

Danny DeVito supposedly signed onto “Dumbo” so he and Burton could complete their “Circus Trilogy.” It is true that Burton has shown a particular fondness for the circus before, in “Big Fish” and parts of “Batman Returns.” Large parts of “Dumbo” are devoted to the sense of family formed among circus performers. Everyone in the circus stands up for Dumbo and his mom. Yet Burton seems even more fond of what an extended confidence act the circus is. Ringmaster Medici has few people filling multiple roles at the circus, the strongman doubling as a orchestra leader for one example. He isn't great about paying people, extending promises he doesn't always keep. There's something sweet about how this big mess is held together by everyone loving it so much.

Burton has certainly expressed his love of ramshackle establishments running on pure sincerity before. Dumbo and the circus around him emerge as another set of Burtonian misfits, fighting against conformity. Weirdly, Burton chooses this material to bring a political context to his usual tropes. Medici's Circus is a small business. It gets scooped up by Vandevere's Dreamland, a bigger and glossier establishment worth millions. Yet Vandevere doesn't care about the little workers his company has absorbed, deciding to fire them shortly after hiring them. His establishment is soon exposed as flashy but hollow. The way a rich man commodifies unique and special things – by selling stuffed animals of Dumbo – is either Burton biting the corporate Disney hand that feeds him or the movie being especially blatant about its toy tie-ins.

These anti-big business themes are certainly more compelling, and unexpected, than some of the other ideas floating around inside “Dumbo.” This is a movie that purports to support animal rights while also trumpeting a love for the circus. A circus in 1919 even, a time and place that almost assuredly saw its share of casual animal abuse. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal of the story is to release Dumbo back into the wild. This is especially apparent during a closing scene where Medici talks directly to the viewer and mentions how free and comfortable their animals are. It's absolutely a good message but I don't think this story – which also plays an imperiled monkey for occasional laughs – was the best place to make it.

At times, “Dumbo” really does feel like three different movies shoved into one. You have a cutesy CGI remake of the original “Dumbo,” you have a story about a little circus being bought up by a big circus, and you have a story of a family recovering from their mother's death. Weirdly, that last story is the one that feels the most childish. The dead mom is just a prop, a clumsy way of connecting the children with Dumbo, who is missing his own mom. We never get a sense of who their mother was. We also never get the feeling that Holt is mourning his own wife very much, as he seems much more upset by Medici selling his horses and slightly annoyed by how clearly traumatized his kids are.

I hate to say this but a big reason why that particular subplot doesn't work, aside from it just being really underwritten, is that the child actors aren't very good. Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins are making their debuts here. Parker as Milly, who Burton makes up to look a lot like one of Margaret Keane's big eyed waifs, speaks most of her lines in a blank monotone. It doesn't help that she's given some truly tin-earred exposition to deliver too. Hobbins, as Jack, is among the film's most underdeveloped kids. He too seems deeply uncomfortable on camera. It's not right to blame kids for these sort of things but somebody somewhere made a mistake with these leads.

But maybe the kids give lackluster performances because they are just following the lead of the movie's biggest star. Colin Farrel, playing a part probably would've gone to Johnny Depp a few years ago, is cashing a paycheck so hard. There's a lot for an actor to dig into in the part of Holt Farrier. He's a veteran of the first World War who has recently lost an arm, a loss that comes atop his wife dying while he was overseas. Instead of digging into any of that, Farrell recites his dialogue and goes through the motions without a single flicker of genuine emotion crossing his eyes. I don't know, maybe he was trying to play it stoic...

Luckily, Burton has his collection of regulars along and they are more than capable of carrying the entire film. Danny DeVito, who is very close to being the film's main character, is truly delightful as Medici. He seems in very high spirits, as a man whose childhood enthusiasm is never quite crushed despite the sadness he clearly carries around inside him. Eva Green, now thoroughly established as Burton's latest muse, soars as Colette, the trapeze artist who is slowly won over by Dumbo. That ineffable grace and wit Green brings to every role is especially well utilized here, as a character who is more complex than she initially appears. Lastly, Michael Keaton has a ton of fun hamming it up as Vandevere. Halfway between Beetlejuice and Bruce Wayne, Keaton growls and pontificates as the unscrupulous businessman. As he grows more unhinged, Keaton only becomes more entertaining.

Maybe it's because my expectations were very low but I ended up liking “Dumbo” a little more than expected. After an extremely slow first act, it picks up a lot and starts to feel a lot more like a Tim Burton movie. Granted, it's a Tim Burton movie with not nearly enough heart in its story and way too much fucking CGI but at least it's recognizable as a Burton film. As uneven as it is, it ultimately proves more interesting than “Miss Peregrine” or “Dark Shadows,” the director's anti-corporate themes emerging in a big way. And, it turns out, an adorable baby elephant goes a long way. I still can't support Disney raiding their vault for easy, nostalgia-baiting box office. (Which didn't exactly work out as well planned this time.) However, this probably emerges as my favorite of their recent remakes. [Grade: B-]

OSCARS 2018: The Breadwinner (2017)

God bless GKIDS. Over the last few years, the distributor have brought interesting, fascinating animated films from all over the world to American audiences. Surprisingly, the company's output has consistently impressed Academy voters. Since 2012, indie, off-beat animated films from the company have regularly grabbed Best Animated Feature nominees. If I'm being cynical, I'd say that GKIDS has become the easy choice for “indie” animation, so the category still seems legitimate to hardcore cartoon people. Whatever the reason, I'm glad GKIDS getting attention for movies that might otherwise be ignored. This year, “The Breadwinner” fills that peg. The latest from Cartoon Saloon, the Irish studio behind the also nominated “Song of the Sea” and “Secret of the Kells,” the film takes a look at a more contemporary setting.

The story focuses on a family living in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Father Nurullah lost a leg in a previous conflict. His wife, Fattema, their oldest daughter Soraya, and their infant son Zaki stay at home. His youngest daughter, Parvana, accompanies him into town everyday to help him sell his goods. Parvana is now old enough to attract attention from men. While defending his daughter, Nurullah is attacked. Later, he's dragged off to prison for possessing educational books. With no other option, Fattema cuts Parvana's hair and dresses her like a boy. Going out into town to work, Parvana discovers new freedoms and challenges.

“The Breadwinner” is animated in a cute, cartoony style but don't mistake it for a typical kids' movie. The film is surprisingly grim. Nurullah is beaten with his own cane. Fattema is attacked by a Taliban member, left beaten and bruised. After assuming her new masculine identity, Parvana witnesses a young women being attacked. The actual violence is frequently kept just off-screen but the focus on sound design and what the witnesses feel make these moments no less intense. Through this lens, “The Breadwinner” emerges as a critique of masculine violence. Women are a constant target of violence and further oppressed by the Taliban's institutionalized sexism. Parvana's world is opened up when she starts dressing like a boy but is still threatened by violent men.

Yet “The Breadwinner” is not just a grim and downbeat story of life during wartime. There's sometimes a humor to the film. After she begins dressing like a boy, Parvana meets Shauzia, another girl who is living the same deception. The two quickly form a friendship, laughing and joking around. (One could even read deeper into Parvana and Shauzia's friendship, considering the two are already violating gender norms.) The audience likes the outspoken, brave Parvana enough that just seeing her finally freed from the subjugation makes you smile. “The Breadwinner” also has its touching moments. A man, who previously encountered Parvana before she started disguising herself, asks the educated girl to read a letter for him. A letter about a relative of his dying suddenly. The man later helps Parvana out, showing that kindness and compassion can extend pass prejudice and religious extremism.

There's another layer to “The Breadwinner's” narrative. Nurullah hasn't just taught his daughter to read. He's also educated her on the history of the area, how Afghanistan has been conquered by one force or another for centuries. At the same time, he's also passed stories and legends onto her. Pavaran has carried this habit for storytelling. Throughout the film, she tells her little brother a story about a boy on a quest to defeat an elephant god. This subplot also makes “The Breadwinner” a story about story telling. The story-within-the-film mirrors Pavaran's own quest, to a degree. Moreover, it shows how stories can help us through our struggles and allow us to uncover our own strengths.

“The Breadwinner” doesn't catch all the balls it throws up into the air. The ending is a bit sudden, the story being wrapped up in a sudden, not-entirely-satisfying ways. Yet the movie remains a touching, surprisingly bracing film. The animated is lovely, the character designs are crisp and the storytelling sequences have a charming, stylized look to them. I'm glad that the film garnered an Oscar nomination, as it surely is one of the best animated films of the previous year. [8/10]

Director Report Card: Stephen Sommers (1994)

3. The Jungle Book

Within recent years, Disney has discovered a surefire formula for success. Many of their animated films are iconic, beloved classics that are well-known all around the world. Translating these stories into live action, sprinkling a few recognizable faces in the cast and piling on the CGI spectacle, has resulted in multiple massive blockbusters. It doesn't matter that these movies range from bland to outright offensive, because they make a shit-ton of money. Disney shows no sign of slowing down either, with CGI-heavy, quote-unquote live action versions of “Dumbo,” “Aladdin,” and “The Lion King” coming next. But this trend is not as new as you might think. In 1994, just in time for the 100th anniversary of Rudyard Kipling's book, a new live action version of “The Jungle Book” would hit theater screens. Following the modest success of his “Huck Finn” for Disney, Stephen Sommers would direct, placing Kipling's famous characters into a homage to classic pulp adventure cinema.

Though Rudyard Kipling's name was above the title on the poster, this “Jungle Book” is really only inspired by his writing. In this version, Mowgli is a young boy traveling with a group of trackers through the Indian jungles. After their camp is attacked by Shere Khan, Mowgli is lost in the woods. Eventually, he's adopted by a pack of wolves and becomes accepted as a citizen of the jungle. Years later, now a man, Mowgli is rediscovered by humanity. He's taken in by Colonel Brydon and Dr. Plumford, who try to teach him the ways of man. Along the way, he falls in love with Kitty, Brydon's daughter. But Kitty is already engaged to Captain Boone. When she rejects him, Boone becomes violent and insists Mowgli leads him to the mythical city of Hanuman, a place full of treasure and danger.

Yes, Sommers' “The Jungle Book” is a pretty loose adaptation of Kipling's book. Aside from the some of the characters, the two have pretty much nothing in common. Considering most of Disney's modern remakes of their cartoons are practically shot-for-shot remakes, I somewhat welcome this. Instead, Sommers uses the concept as a set-up for a modern day jungle adventure movie. The jungle adventure was once a very common genre in the forties and fifties but fell out of fashion years ago. Sommers joyfully hits most of the trademark notes. There's quicksand, secret treasure, boobie traps, friendly animals, deadly animals, mysterious Hindis, a lovely maiden, pith helmets, and a hero who is very familiar with the jungle. About the only thing that's missing is the safari stock footage.

What perhaps elevates “The Jungle Book” over its flaws is that it's actually about something. The differences between the law of the jungle and the law of man is the story's backbone. While most takes on “The Jungle Book” focus on how Mowgli is pulled between the jungle and the world of man, in this version, Mowgli represents the purer world of nature. He comes from a place where there's no greed, where residents never take more than they need. Men, meanwhile, kill for sport or gold. The film is not subtle about this. The “civilized” bad guys are far more vicious than the “savage” hero. Mowgli outright dismisses the ways of man several times. However, it adds a little more gristle to what would might've just been a standard adventure flick. The movie clearly takes target at imperialism and the exploitation of nature.

On the surface, Jason Scott Lee probably doesn't seem like the best casting for Mowgli. Mowgli is probably the most famous Indian character in Western literature while Lee is Chinese/Hawaiian. Lee, however, is fantastic in the part. His earliest moments on-screen are silent. The lack of dialogue doesn't prevent Lee from creating an interesting character. Later, as Mowgli learns to speak English, Lee's performance really comes to life. He mimes the English words in a hilarious way. His body language is perfectly controlled and precise, such as a moment where he mocks Captain Boone by copying his movements. Lee manages to make dialogue that might've been overwrought seem totally sincere. He's perfectly convincing as a boy raised in the jungle, more attuned to nature than the world of man.

Starring opposite Lee is Cary Elwes, who happily hams it up as Captain Boone. Elwes is the face of British snobbery. He is prim, proper, and utterly stuck-up. He's also a huge asshole, relishing his privilege as a military officer in a foreign country. This makes him an ideal foil to Lee's Mowgli, as Elwes' Boone represents everything that's bad about the world of man. As the story goes on, the character becomes more obviously villainous, giving the actor a chance to really chew up the scenery. He's a perfectly hatable bad guy and ideal for this kind of story.

As in Sommers' previous films, he pulls together a really solid supporting cast too. Years before “300” and “Dredd” brought her to a new audience, Lean Headey played Kitty here. She's not a bad-ass in this movie, instead playing a more innocent character, but Headey still excels at playing a character standing up to tradition. Sam Neill is likable as Colonel Brydon, the film's reasonable authority figure. He also provides the film's lyrical opening and closing narration, taken directly from Kipling's book. Jason Flemyng is well suited to the part of Wilkens, a cowardly and increasingly nervous member of Boone's team. My favorite supporting player is John Cleese as Dr. Plumford. Plumford is also perfectly British in his stuffiness but plays it for comedic effect, something he's obviously very good at.

“The Jungle Book” would be Stephen Sommers' first proper action movie, bringing him to the genre where he would find the most success. It's easy to see why. His “Jungle Book” is fleet-footed and inventive. This becomes clear during a chase through the busy Indian streets, which concludes with an amusing gag on a levitating rope, something that feels right out of a classic jungle adventure flick. There's a well orchestrated shoot-out midway through, boosted by triumphing elephants. Lee's Mowgli transforms fully into an action hero during a cliff side fight with one of Boone's henchmen. The scene concludes with a guy carrying a large stone being pushed away, a moment the director would practically reprise in “The Mummy.”

In fact, “The Jungle Book” is a pretty clear predecessor to Sommers' “Mummy.” Both features a team of unsympathetic rivals to the heroes, who are killed off in increasingly grisly way. Scenes of drowning in quicksand or tiger attacks probably push the limits of the PG rating. The comparison becomes utterly unavoidable in the last act, taking place in an ancient temple full of boobie traps. Such as a room slowly filling with sand or a torch that lights up the whole area. (Sommers would also reuse that one for “The Mummy.”) Honestly, it's pretty clear that “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was a huge influence on Sommers. He draws from some of that energy with this one.

The director's visual skills continue to evolve. “The Jungle Book” features some of the same excesses he showed in “Huck Finn” but they are better used. A scene where Mowgli runs in slow motion, tears streaming down his face, probably would've been utterly ridiculous. Yet the it somehow works here, perhaps thanks to Lee's performance. Sommers also peppers the film with wipe transition, another deliberate homage to classic matinee cinema. Overall, “The Jungle Book” is excellently shot and edited. This movie also marks the first time the director would use CGI. It's briefly used to bring Kaa to life, who has been recast as an anaconda that has magically transported itself to India.

Some of Sommers' narrative trademarks become apparent here as well. Primarily, his love of gratuitous foreshadowing. In the opening scene, a man picks up a playing card showing a tiger. Seconds later, Shere Khan appears. Around the same time, a young Mowgli explains a dream he had, where he is linked with a tiger. Naturally, he comes face-to-face with Shere Khan – who functions more as a plot device than an antagonist here – before the story is up. Long before Mowgli and Boone becomes enemies, they have a conversation discussing the possibility that the Captain might someday hunt him. The last act, with the giant snake and room full of treasure, is essentially a reprise of an earlier scene. It's maybe not the cleanest way to write but, you know, it satisfies. The dots connect in a comforting way.

“The Jungle Book” also has the benefit of a fantastic score. The great Basil Poledouris handles the music. He includes lots of sweeping themes, powerful waves of strings that wash over the audience. This establishes the film's period setting and also the sense of adventure. When paired with large shots of flowing waterfalls or jungle trees, it really grabs an epic feeling. He also fills the soundtrack with sounds that hint at the jungle setting, clicking and rattling. There's a flavor of exoticism too, with mysterious sounding woodwinds and hollow drumming. While not the composer's most memorable scores, it's a very strong piece of music that elevates the film.

This “Jungle Book” would quickly become a favorite in my boyhood household. I watched it just as much as the animated version, if not more. The cute animals appealed to my mom, the hunky guys appealed to my sister, and I liked the well-executed adventure. (And my mom is still annoyed that Disney has never reissued the film and used copies go for way too much on-line.) I even played the point-and-click computer game, though I suspect that iteration doesn't hold up too way. For the most part, Sommers' “Jungle Book” is just as entertaining now as it was then. It's a really fun adventure flick. It would set up the framework that the director would continue to follow throughout his career. [Grade: B+]

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2016) Part 1

54. Zootopia

At first, no one seemed that excited for “Zootopia.” Most people judged the initial trailers as overly snarky, smug, and not that funny. Some made cracks about the characters designs, such as the overly sexualized gazelle. This led to many jokes about the furry fandom. There wasn’t much hype or excitement for the film. Maybe Disney knew what they were doing. “Zootopia” opened to positive reviews, many reviewers surprised by how funny and perceptive the final film is. Continuing the studio’s post-“Frozen” streak of success, “Zootopia” has also been a hit at the box office, breaking records in several territories. As someone who has enjoyed every Disney Animated Feature since John Lasseter took over the animation wing, my expectations were measured but positive for “Zootopia.” Yep, I liked this one too.

Judy Hopps is a rabbit. Like most rabbits, her parents are simple carrot farmers, living in the countryside. Yet Judy has different plans for her life. She wants to become a police officer, helping patrol and protect the citizens of Zootopia, a modern metropolis for animals. Working hard to become the top of her class, Judy achieves that dream. Upon arriving in Zootopia, things are harder then she expected. Being a bunny in a police department populated by large mammals and predators, she faces discrimination. Despite being forced to do grunt-work, Judy uncovers an unusual conspiracy to play the different social classes in Zootopia against each other. During her journey, she encounters Nick Wilde, a fox and a con artist, and develops an unexpected partnership with him.

Reportedly, the eureka moment during “Zootopia’s” development was the premise of animals inhabiting a world designed by and for animals. The titular city of the film is an impressive creation. As Judy rolls into Zootopia on a train, we’re introduced to each sector of the city, made for different animals. There’s a frozen tundra for arctic creatures, a desert area for warm-climate animals, and a rain forest section for species adapted for that environment. Most clever is how the film handles animals of different size. The train has a domed, tall section for giraffes. One part of Zootopia is designed for smaller creatures, such as rodents. While still resembling a modern city as we know it, “Zootopia” invents a funny, clever creation that isn’t entirely like anything we’ve seen before.

Another likable element of “Zootopia” is how it plays within a pre-established genre. “Zootopia” is a buddy cop movie of sorts. As in “48 Hrs.” and many films before, “Zootopia” pairs a by-the-book cop up with a rascally, street-smart quasi-crook. At first, Judy and Nick actively dislike each other. The fox does his best to undermine the rabbit’s mission, back-biting against their perceived partnership. Likewise, Judy frequently, happily calls Nick on his bullshit. However, a mutual respect forms between the two disparate individuals. By the story’s end, Nick and Judy are friends. There’s enough tension between them to suggest a romantic connection, even. Considering there’s never been much of a difference between a romance and the buddy genre, that’s a natural extension. Judy and Nick hate each other, work together, start to like each other, have their struggles, but are inseparable by the end.

“Zootopia” also functions as a surprisingly compelling mystery. At the film’s beginning, Judy has been assigned to traffic duty, slapping parking tickets on cars. However, she soon uncovers a lead in the story’s central mystery. Citizens of Zootopia have been disappearing throughout the city. The only connection between the victims are that they are all meat-eating predators. “Zootopia” does a decent job of disguising its plot points, the audience realizing discoveries at the same time as characters. The eventual circumstances of the mystery – which involve peaceful Zootopians reverting back to their animistic, savage behavior – also pushes this kids movie into some surprisingly intense areas. The last act, which involves illegal chemistry and government corruption, reveals “Zootopia” as a fuzzy, kid-friendly variation on the noir genre. It’s all funny, interesting stuff.

2016 is still fairly young but Judy Hopps is likely to be one of my favorite protagonists of the year. The early scenes establishes Judy’s indomitable drive towards her goals. Her parents, her teachers, and the class room bully all tell her that a rabbit can’t be a cop. But being told she can’t do something just makes Judy work harder to realize that dream. Yet she doesn’t lack doubts. After moving into the city, she finds herself living in a tiny apartment. Before the film concludes, her struggles and self-doubts rear her head. Even Judy wonders if her dream is possible, if she can reach the lofty goals she has set for herself. Ginnifer Goodwin’s voice work is clear, funny, personable, and eccentric.

The second half of the duo is Nick Wilde. Wilde is essentially a con man, making his living performing hustles that straddle the line of legality. His introduction scene has him turning one elephant sized ice pop – which he pointedly did not pay for – into a hundred lemming-sized ice pops. He then turns around and sells the popsicle sticks as timber to a mouse-sized lumber yard. At first, the fox and the rabbit seem on opposite sides of the same systems. While Judy has worked hard for everything she has, Nick is happy to swindle people out of their cash. Yet the fox has an honor system all his own. Better yet, the two compliment each other. Jason Bateman is perfectly cast as the sly canine, his immediately recognizable voice and good-natured sarcasm being an ideal match for the part. 

“Zootopia” has a colorful and memorable supporting cast. Idris Elba brings his exotic but authoritative voice to Chief Bogo, the water buffalo police chief that bosses Judy and her colleagues around. Nate Torrence plays Clawhauser, the dispatcher. Despite being a cheetah, Clawhauser is rotund, due to his fondness for donuts. He’s also effeminate and flamboyant, qualities Torrence has a lot of fun inhabiting. J. K. Simmons' unmistakably growl fits the mayor of Zootopia, a lion. Though a small part, Simmons brings some humor and character to the role. The same can’t be said of Octavia Spencer, a name actress wasted in a bit part as the missing otter’s concerned wife. Tiny Lister, Tommy Chong, and Shakira have cameos playing off their established pop culture personas but these are amusing gags.

Speaking of amusing gags! “Zootopia” is really funny. There are a number of fantastically orchestrated jokes. Easily, the comedic high-light of the film is Judy pursuing a suspect through the smallest part of Zootopia. Watching the bigger animals careen or gently pass through the tiny community produces some fine sight gags. A reveal concerning Nick’s partner-in-crime – who at first appears to be an adorable Fennic fox with an elephant obsession – gets a decent laugh. As does two very different police officers playing around with a pop-star featuring phone app. Another sequence is built around a “naturalistic” yoga club, featuring animals shedding their human-like clothing. There’s an extended joke that is successfully built upon, adding to the absurdity. As a dog owner, a sequence devoted to dogs loosing themselves to howling made me laugh. Quick and amusing sight gags include references to Disney’s recent and upcoming films and an unexpected shout-out to “Breaking Bad,” of all things. Prominently featured in nearly all the trailers is the DMV being run by typically slow sloths. This is a good example of how “Zootopia” caters its world to specific animal features. Despite being heavily featured in the marketing, the jokes still manage to be amusing.

Surprisingly, “Zootopia” isn’t just funny. The film works pretty well as an action movie. The aforementioned chase through the rodent district is as thrilling as it is chuckle-inducing, Judy avoiding several close calls. A chase through the tree tops of the rain forest area generates some effective tension, the heroes dangling for their lives over the jungle canapés. The story climaxes in the subways of the city, the heroes avoiding enemies in the tight confines of a train car. There’s way more screeching breaks and shattered glass then you’d foresee in a kid’s flick. Naturally, it’s all gorgeously animated too. One thing Disney’s most prominent rival – Dreamworks – does really well is combining action and comedy. I’d never expect the Mouse Factory to take something from Dreamworks but, in this case, it was a wise decision.

The element of “Zootopia” that has received the most attention is its not-particularly subtle subtext about prejudice and racism. When Judy comes to Zootopia, she is discriminated against for being a bunny. Despite this, Judy has her own prejudice, which she doesn’t even realize. She makes snap judgements about Nick and the other predators she meets. Some of these are built into her by her parents, others are her own fault. Later in the film, her poor choice of words during a press conference inspires a wave of prejudice throughout the city, enacting mass exclusion and persecution of predators. The villains' plot uses hate and prejudice to further their own goals, pushing the city apart to make themselves more powerful. Reading too much into “Zootopia” probably isn’t recommended. The main characters being cops is probably an unintended parallel with recent events. “Zootopia’ is more simple then that. That doesn’t make its central message – that prejudice pushes us apart as a culture – any less vital.

Not every element of “Zootopia” works seamlessly. A subplot involving the animal underworld, featuring a mob boss that is a vole, retreads some easy jokes about mafia stereotypes. Considering “Zootopia” is coming out against prejudice, using common cultural clichés like this doesn’t help the film. While the mystery in “Zootopia” is compelling for most of its run time, eventually the audience figures things out before the characters do. A reveal, concerning a type of flower, really comes out of nowhere. The climax features the protagonists making some last minute switches that strain credibility for me.

So the script isn’t perfect. However, “Zootopia” has lots of laughs, great lead characters, some thrills, a few surprises, great animation, and a timely moral. Where it falls in Disney’s recent history is harder to guess. The script is less routine then “Wreck-It Ralph” or “Big Hero 6” but the premise isn’t as inventive or heart-felt as either of those films. Still, when a movie’s good, it’s good. I’m happy to see “Zootopia” has connected with audiences, meaning “Frozen”-style princess stories aren’t the only cartoons Disney will be making for the foreseeable future. The variety, quirk, and pure amusement factor “Zootopia” brings to the table can only mean more good stuff in the future. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Alejandro Jodorowsky (1980)

4. Tusk
Poo Lorn L'Elephant

All of Alejandro Jodorowsky’s films are, to a degree, obscure. Only now, after DVD releases, a documentary, and a new film, is the director starting to receive wider recognition. “El Topo” is known to movie fanatics, film historians, and weird cinema buffs. Yet even it was unavailable for years. Out of all of Jodorowsky’s obscure, unseen films, one stands above the rest as the most hard-to-find. Jodorowsky shot “Tusk” in India in the late seventies, after his too-ambitious-to-ever-be-realized version of “Dune” fell apart. The film was not widely seen in its day and has never receive a  home video release. The director, on his end, disowned the movie and never talks about it. “Tusk” was virtually unknown for decades, even among Jodorowsky fans. That is until two years back. A blurry, scratchy copy of the film, sourced from a long-along recorded French VHS, surfaced on file-sharing sites and, not long afterwards, Youtube. As dismal as the quality is, at least ‘Tusk” can now be seen. Is it a hidden gem or a rightfully ignored misstep in the cult filmmaker’s career?

The story follows the lives of two separate individuals, both born on the same day. One is Elise, the daughter of a rich white businessman living in India. The other is an elephant, one among many that the man keeps on his property as work animals. Named Genesh by the locals, but nicknamed Tusk by the white men, the elephant and the little girl develop a bound. Going their separate ways, the two live parallel lives. When she returns home as an adult, Elise and Tusk renew their bound, just as the elephant’s life becomes endangered.

“Tusk” is not like Jodorowsky’s other films. There is no surrealism or evident satire. The film tells a straight forward story in a traditional manner. There is no obscure symbolism, no references to Eastern mysticism, no elements steeped in shamanism, spiritualism or philosophy. There is no graphic violence or aberrant sexuality. There are no physically deformed characters, amputations, castrations, acid trips, or crucified farm animals. There’s not even any mime. “Tusk” has been described as a children’s film. Though it contains some salty language and a few murders, “Tusk” is probably appropriate for the 8-and-up crowd. This makes it a serious anomaly in Jodorowsky’s career. Even more so, since we’re coming off the excesses of “The Holy Mountain.”

However, if one looks a little closer, a few of Jodorowsky trademarks can be seen. Like most of the director’s films, “Tusk” is broken up into chapters. The chapter breaks are visualized by the scene fading to a desaturated painting. An Indian snake charmer seemingly transforms into a chicken in one scene. The villains of the film are possibly homosexuals, giving each other affectionate neck rubs. One smokes cigarettes made out of camel hair or monkey shit, an odd element. A late night chase scene, where Elise is threatened by a rogue elephant, has a dream-like quality to it lacking from most of the film. A British priest is revered by the locals but, in his private life, drinks far too much. This is a touch of religious satire present in the filmmaker’s other work. The biggest Jodorowsky element of the film is that the Maharajas' wife is, for no explained reason, played by a man in drag. Otherwise, “Tusk” is lacking in Jodorowsky signifiers.

The main dramatic meat of “Tusk” comes from the way the life of Elise, the girl, compares to the life of Tusk, the elephant. Both are born on the same day, at the same moment. Both loose their mothers, Elise's dying in childhood and Tusk being separated from his as a youngster. Elise is so distraught by how Tusk is treated, that she retreats to her room and doesn’t eat. Similarly, the elephant stops eating, only laying on the ground. When Elise is shipped off to boarding school, Tusk is broken and trained to be a work animal. When she returns, both the girl and the elephant rejoice. When Elise gets fed up with her father’s bullshit, she runs off into the night. At the same time, Tusk escapes his cape and flees into the jungle. Throughout the film, the elephant suddenly appears to save the girl’s life. The connection is not deliberately psychic. It is, instead, a decent example of the way Jodorowsky incorporates his magic realism into the story.

As expected, “Tusk” features a lot of elephants. Good for us that the elephants are pretty good actors. There aren’t as many long stretches in the film devoted to elephants wandering around, doing their thing as the IMDb reviews would lead you to believe. The film properly sells the size and powers of elephants. Though the film is always sympathetic to Tusk, he seems almost too dangerous at times, on the edge of going on a rampage. He defends the people he cares about, killing another elephant that attacks Elise. Jodorowsky clearly had an affection for the animal and that shows through in the movie.

A deeper reading of “Tusk” reveals it as a criticism of western imperialism and the British empire. Elise’s father begins the film as a cruel businessman, exploiting the land and the people, never caring for the repercussion. The villains of the film pursue Tusk strictly for the money he’s worth. Elephants, shown in the film as intelligent and compassionate creatures, are frequently referred to as property, valued only for what they’re worth. Elise adopts the culture of the local people, much to her dad’s rage. When Tusk escapes, he targets not the hunters after him but symbols of British empire. He stands in the way of a train, literally stopping the forces of capitalism in its path. When further antagonized, Tusk pushes the train over, the cowardly priest inside. It’s notable that, at the end, after loosing his fortune, Elise’s father is converted to the local religion, taken to a temple and adorn in body paint.

Tusk’s rampage also speaks to the film’s interest in animals. Considering Jodorowsky has never been shy about killing animals on-screen before, it’s interesting that he’s so compassionate to the animal’s plight. Those that hunt animals are painted in a very negative light. When Tusk is taking out the bad guys at the end, it’s notable that he spares the main villain’s cute animal sidekick. Jodorowsky also returns to his pet theme of the relationship between parents and children. Elise and her father are at odds to begin with. However, when Tusk is captured and on the verge of escape, the two both cheer for the elephant. The elephant unites both of them, allowing them get past their differences.

The biggest problem with “Tusk” is its buffoonish bad guy. The villains are led by Sharkley, a nasty man with nasty motivations. He pursues the elephant for the money, primarily, but also because he seems gratuitously evil. He’s also needlessly vulgar, farting, swearing and casually committing murder. His sidekick is far more annoying, making wimpy exclamations. The bad guys seemingly extend the plot pass it’s logical point, leading to fist fights and chase scenes. The rest of the film is fairly serious and realistic, which makes the cartoonish, broad villains hard to swallow.

Another weaker factor in the story is its romantic subplot. Richard Cairn is an American big game hunter invited to India to hunt down the rogue elephant. He seems to develop feelings for Elise as soon as he sees her. As is expected, she is disgusted by the man and how many innocent elephants he’s killed. As their adventure goes on, the two grow closer. After saving her life at the end, Elise leaps into Cairn’s arms, giving him a big kiss. This happens with little build-up and is definitely one of the more laughable moments in the film. The romantic subplot ends up adding very little to the story.

“Tusk” assembles a cast of character actors and obscure names. Cyrielle Clair, a French actress of minor acclaim, plays Elise. She’s lovely to look at and gives a decent performance. She’s a likable presence. Even if the character’s addition to the film is questionable, Christopher Mitchum is decently charismatic as the brave Cairn. Anton Diffring also does a decent job as Elise’s father. It’s a subtle performance. He could have easily played the role too broad, as a shallow and evil parent. Instead, he gifts the character with some nuance, his actions rooted in real world concerns. The film’s cast is solid enough to help distracts from its narrative problems.

“Tusk” has a bizarre musical score. The music can best be described as electric guitar covers of traditional Indian music. This is sometimes effective, adding a local flavor to the film. Some times it’s extremely distracting. Other times, the music is softer, enhancing the emotional scenes of the film. It’s a bizarre musical score, showing Jodorowsky’s odd, underground roots in this family film. The lousy sound quality of the print I watched didn’t help matters.

During the rare times when he has acknowledge the film, Jodorowsky has said that “Tusk” was taken away from him by the producers. The director’s envisioned, preferred cut would have been shorter, apparently. This would have been good, as “Tusk” runs a little too long in its current form. However, it’s doubtful an official release, much less a director’s cut, will ever surface. The film is simply too obscure, even by the standards of Jodorowsky’s other cult favorites. The washed-out, barely watchable bootleg currently swimming around the internet is probably the best version of this minor film we’ll ever see. “Tusk” is not terrible, and deserves better, but I can’t call it an overlooked masterpiece either. [Grade: C+]

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (1961-1970)

17. One Hundred and One Dalmatians
Recently rewatching this film, I was surprised by the fluidity of the animation. All the characters move with a life-like spring in their steps. Though roto-scoping has often been misused as a dollar stretching technique, it adds a level of vividness to the character movements here.

It’s a thoroughly enjoyable little movie. The characters aren’t anything new but still prove interesting to watch. The sequence were Pongo stares out the window trying to pick out a mate for his masters has always struck me as very clever, especially with the ways the owners resemble their pets. The love story between Roger and Anita, though not the main focus of the film, is also pulled off nicely. The story also feels very much of it times. Maybe it’s the art design but this one screams both “England!” and “Sixties!” Which makes it timeless and sort of unique, don’t you think?
Most people remember this today for the villain, Cruella DeVille, who truly is one of the great Disney villains. Just the fact that the character is so callous is what makes her so memorable. She’s not interested in financial gain or power or any typical villainous motivations. She just wants the perfect fur coat. And she’s willing to kill one hundred and one puppies to get it. Puppies, man! How more evil can you get? Her nasty-ness even makes the comic relief henchmen more threatening.

Music doesn’t play as big a part in this film as in other Disney pictures, but Cruella’s theme song is very catchy and instantly recognizable. I’ve also always thought the TV-shows with in the film were a nice touch of meta-awareness on Disney’s behalf. Not a really great Disney film, but definitely one of the more entertaining ones. [Grade: B]

18. The Sword in the Stone
In keeping with the European feel, this plays out sort of like a low-key version of “Sleeping Beauty.” The art design is similar to that film in that it appears to be based at least partially on medieval artwork. Stained glass was an obvious influence on both films. Of course, the animation quality is of a much lower budget then that high point and the colors here are muted and the landscapes flat.

The tone is completely different as well, more in line with what you’d expect from Disney. It’s a mildly amusing comedy. The humor is mostly derived from character interaction which makes it fairly reliable for a laugh. I particularly like the love-struck squirrel. That always got a chuckle out of me as a kid. The characters are more archetypes then anything else. (This is a retelling of the King Arthur story, after all. Wouldn’t you expect archetypes?) I’m not sure I like Merlin as a mildly frenzied old coot either and I certainly could have done without his owl sidekick.
The story is slowly paced and laid back, mostly involving Merlin transforming young Wart into an animal of some sort and related wackiness ensuing. There’s never a definite moving force here and threats are introduced sporadically before being dealt with in an equally swift manner. I’m not sure how I feel about the character designs either, which are more exaggerated then usual.

The music is fairly minor but still manages to be catchy. I can hum you a handful of bars from “What Makes the World Go Round,” “Higitus Figitus” (which is basically “Bippitiy Boppity Boo” rewritten for a guy) and, the definite highlight, “The Mad Madam Mim.” The wizard dual at the end is a nice sequence and at least takes things out on a high note. A serious retelling of the Arthurian legend was obviously beyond the studios’ means at the time and I’m not sure I’d like to see that tale Disney-ized anyway. Either way “The Sword in the Stone” is completely pleasant and easily watchable, if far from the major masterpieces the studio is known for. [Grade: B-]

19. The Jungle Book
“The Jungle Book” might have the best voice cast Disney ever put together. It was criticized at the time for casting well-known actors in part similar to their established personas. Valid criticism, I suppose, but when it works this well, you can’t really fault the decision. Each voice and character are matched so perfectly. There isn’t a single bad performance in the whole movie. Sebastian Cabot resonates authority as Bagheera but also brings warmth to the part. Though primarily a comic relief character, Phil Harris still gives Baloo a multifaceted personality. Sterling Holloway is allowed to expand past his usually benign personality as the appropriately slithery Kaa. (Ha, I made a pun!) George Sanders imbues Shere Kahn with a sense of menace and style, making him both a truly threatening villain and strangely likable. You certainly never doubt for a minute that he intends on killing poor little old Mowgli. (And, yes, that is the Clint Howard as the voice of the baby elephant. What a long way we’ve come.) I don’t know how much of the strong characterization has to do with performances or with the writing, but each character has a fully rounded personality, even minor supporting parts.

The music is really outstanding as well featuring, so far, the best music yet written for a Disney feature. It’s the closest the song team has come to feature out-right pop music. Every song here is a favorite of mine and, in between “The Bare Necessities,” “I Wanna Be Like You,” and the appropriately alluring “Home of My Own,” I can’t decide which I like more.
The animation is a step-up from “The Sword in the Stone” and the detailed backgrounds and rich color from “Sleeping Beauty” returns as well, though this film lacks the sheer graphic brilliance of that one. The Indian jungle certainly adds a different color palette then previous Mouse Factory offerings.

Despite being only fitfully faithful the original stories, many of Kipling’s powerful themes are maintain, such as the importance of fire or Mowgli returning to civilization, in what might be the best ending of any Disney Animated Feature. If I had to find anything bad to say about this film, it would be that the plot is a little lacking. There’s not really a driving force behind the plot and it’s more of just running into a bunch of different characters but the experience as a whole is just so enjoyable, that seems like a minor squabble. “The Jungle Book” would be the last animated production Walt Disney himself oversaw. He certainly went out on a high note, as its one of the best of the collection. [Grade: A]


20. The AristoCats
The one thing this film really has going for it is its music, which is excellent all around and some of Disney’s most hum-able songs. “Everybody Wants To Be a Cat” is actually a great little number and the standard of many youngster’s birthday parties, believe you me. Many of the other numbers, including “Scale and Arpeggios” and the title track, sung by the distinguished Maurice Chevalier, are also memorable.

Beyond that, however, the movie mostly plays like a weaker retread of “One Hundred and One Dalmatians.” You have the pets in peril, threatened by a selfish human. You have the owners of the animals, who grieve like they just lost a child. Both finales even feature the lower class critters coming to the rescue of our main cast. The resolutions are even similar, with the street animals being accepted into the nice homes.
There’s a wide range of supporting characters here but, despite the best efforts of the solid voice cast, including many Disney regulars like Phil Harris, Eva Gabor, Sterling Holloway, Scatman Crothers, and Paul Winchell, but none of them feel like anything more then clichés. Especially the Scat Cat gang who are all intentionally written as culturally stereotypes. (I point this out less not because its offensive but because its just lazy writing.) The two guard dogs, which meet the standard comedy concept of “Dumb skinny guy who thinks he’s smart and constantly belittles the really dumb fat guy,” bump up against annoying. And there’s plenty of that slapstick I’ve mentioned before, not to mention a totally non-threatening comic relief villain. (There’s a reason Edgar the Butler isn’t spoken of as often as Maleficent or the Evil Queen.) Despite some notable aspects, this is definitely one of the more forgettable Disney features. [Grade: C]