Prizefight: Dreamworks Vs Disney

This may seem like a done deal, however it is actually much closer than i would like to admit. I have not been the biggest fan of Dreamworks over the years, and their history is much shorter than Disneys, so for fairness i will only be counting films released since 2000, as in this time they have made similar types of films, and they have both had a similar creative output quantitatively, and they both have had successes and failures in this period. I will compare these studios based on their critical success, the franchises they have set up and their box office returns, in addition to looking at the number of true 'hits' they have had in this time.

Critically it is not as clear cut as it would seem. Dreamworks started out the century well, releasing two critically acclaimed films in succession, then they stumbled a little, recovering with Shrek 2. After this they stumbled some more, finally releasing Over the Hedge and Kung Fu Panda in 2006 and 2008 respectively, both of which were mild critical hits. Dreamworks would wait until 2010 for their next hit with How To Train Your Dragon, finally releasing it's next critically acclaimed film 4 years later, a sequel to Dragon. Although Dreamworks have had their critical successes, they lack consistency, their films are too erratic.

Disney manages to be more consistent, though they started the millenium fairly well releasing Fantasia 2000 and The Emperors New Groove, both of which were fairly well recieved, however they soon fell into a slump that they would take the rest of the decade trying to claw themselves out of. They would not have another hit until 2009's The Princess and The Frog, which would launch an era known as the Disney revival, a string of five critically acclaimed films that continues to this day, rising to a zenith with Frozen, which was proclaimed to be the greatest Disney musical since Beauty and the Beast.

Dreamworks has had significantly more success than Disney in creating franchises. Dreamworks has successfully launched the Shrek, Madagascar, Dragons and Kung Fu Panda franchises. Disney, on the other hand has struggled, their franchises have mainly continued through direct to DVD releases, merchandise, television series', attractions in the parks and stage productions. Disney have only released two sequels theatrically, during their whole 80 year history. However despite their merchandise sales and DVD's making the executives in Cinderellas castle very rich, this is a cinematic comparison, and on that level Dreamworks is clearly superior.

In recent years, Dreamworks have stumbled at producing consistent hits. They have released two films a year for the last three years, and in each one of these years, one of the films was a success while the other was a failure. Only one Dreamworks film has ever grossed over $800 million, and while films within their Shrek, Madagascar and Dragons franchises regularly gross well over $500 million, their only original commercial success outside of these franchises is The Croods. Disney, howere is considerably more successful, while their films, mostly being originals, don't always gross as much as Dreamworks films do, they are relatively consistent, and despite the failure of Winnie the Pooh (which was critically acclaimed), they haven't had a commercial disappointment since 2006's Meet the Robinsons.

Disney have produced considerably more 'hits' than Dreamworks have, the first example is Frozen. The highest grossing animated film of all time, a huge critical success, and has been credited with breathing life back into Disney animation. Tangled was also a huge commercial hit, as was Lilo and Stitch. Outside of their previously mentioned franchises, Dreamworks have had few hits. The last true 'hit' they produced that wasn't a sequel or spin off was Over The Hedge, released in 2006. So despite Disney having less franchises, they don't rely on franchises and sequels for commercial or critical success.

This prizefight is a great deal closer than i expected it to be, i knew that it would be close, however despite Dreamworks' films being less acclaimed than Disneys, they are far better at establishing franchises from a commercial standpoint, and they have produced quite a few franchises over the years. Their struggles come from creating original films outside of these films and in setting up new franchises, Dreamworks latest franchise was Dragons, which launched in 2010. Since then their only real original hit was The Croods, which was met with mixed review and was a reasonable commercial success. Disney have shown themselves to be much more consistent, whilst their transition to digital filmmaking was laboured and difficult, they nonetheless have had a recent string of critical and commercial successes, cementing their place as the best animation studio making films today.

Prizefight: The Nanny Diaries Vs Devil Wears Prada

In the latest edition of Prizefight, i will compare The Nanny Diaries with the Devil Wears Prada, these films have quite a bit in common, they were both released around the same time, both adapted from hugely successful novels, both of which i have read, and both revolve around dealing with horrendous bosses. I will compare these films on their translation to the big screen, their casting and the hideousness of their bosses!

The novels they are based on both have their issues, that said, The Nanny Diaries is significantly more well written than The Devil Wears Prada, it is more intelligent, and has less narrative issues. The film of The Nanny Diaries follows much the same path as the novel does, the story is almost identical and the characters are much the same as they appear on the page, nothing significant is changed. The Devil Wears Prada however features significant alterations to the source material, the whole plot is reshuffled slightly to streamline it, and to make the characters more believable and empathetic. The character of Miranda is much more understandable in the film than in the novel, and in the book, she remains an out-and-out villain till the very end, in the film she eventually comes round, and we see their relationship as more of a power struggle, with both finally understanding the other. Thus The Devil Wears Prada despite requiring more effort in adapting it to the big screen, is a better adaptation, despite not being quite as faithful an adaptation.

Casting is hugely important in both of these films, the heroine of The Nanny Diaries is Annie Braddock, nicknamed Nanny, who is played by Scarlett Johansson. Johansson might seem like an odd choice for the role, and it is unusually plain for her, however she has the charisma to pull off playing such a mundane part, and she is oddly credible as a lower middle class college grad. The heroine of The Devil Wears Prada is Andy Sachs, again a college grad who goes to work for Runway, a high end fashion magazine. Again, she is well cast, although one feels that this role is a little less of a stretch for her than it is for Johansson, who is playing someone completely separate from anyone else she has ever played, and who never uses her sexuality, and, unlike Andy Sachs, who never has moments of looking pretty or attractive, in fact the whole affair is more a lesson in dowdiness, and Johansson is entirely refreshing in the role.

The bosses in the film are also impeccably cast, Laura Linney Plays Mrs X, a wealthy upper east side trophy wife, who takes little interest in raising her child, and who seems to have little worries in life. Meryl Streep plays Miranda Priestly, a thinly veiled Anna Wintour inspired magazine editor, who is fiercely professional, and who treats her assistants as disposable. Both are fantastic, and i love Laura Linneys portrayal of Mrs X, however Meryl Streep's performance is simply iconic, every note of her performance is perfect, from the cold "that's all", to the way she pats her grey hair, and her carefully pursed lips, everything is exact, and the results are stunning. As for the characters themselves, they are both fearsome creations, Mrs X is a woman who is unreasonable, cruel, has little time for her son and who wants everything from her husband. She is cold and unemotional, she treats her nannies like slaves and she expects them to do everything for her, her actions seem unrealistic, and she has no real motive, other than that being her nature. Miranda Priestly is more easy to understand, she has real motives, and she is motivated by ambition and impatience, and not by greed. Overall, Miranda Priestly is a more believable character, her motivations are more clear.

Both films are fantastic, despite not being Oscar worthy dramas they both feature great performances, and are great fun, they may not be great art but they are delightful distractions, and they do what they attempt successfully. However it is clear that The Devil Wears Prada is the superior film, well adapted and the better acted movie.

Prizefight: MARVEL vs DC

Both these comic book companies have had huge success in the field of cinema, and both are still producing films, this post will analyze the differences between the ways these companies have adapted their universes to film, the completeness of their franchises and how coherent their film universes are.

DC have been making films for significantly longer than Marvel, DC first created a franchise with the release of the original superman film in 1978, which spawned four sequels and a semi reboot. The first batman film was released in 1989, directed by Tim Burton and starring Michael Keaton, the film became a blueprint for superhero movies released over the next decade, being dark and brooding, featuring graphic imagery and being unabashedly violent, and influencing the way superhero films were marketed and promoted. These films were both released by Warner Brothers, and to date the whole of the DC universe has been produced exclusively by Warner, giving the franchise a sense of cohesion not present in the more fragmented Marvel franchises.

Marvel Comics properties have had a significantly more tortured road to the big screen, the first movie produced was X-Men, which was released in 1999, to great critical acclaim, and which to date has spawned five sequels and two spin offs. This film was released by 20th Century Fox, as was The Fantastic Four, which itself spawned a sequel. The next property to be adapted was Spider-Man, released by Sony in 2002, spawning a trilogy of films and a rebooted franchise. In 2009 Disney purchased Marvel entertainment, and thus set up Marvel studios, which started producing it's own films financed and distributed by Disney, this gave birth to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a shared world which some Marvel characters inhabit, notably the avengers.

Although the DC Universe may seem to be the least fragmented and the most complete, their films have all been based around only a handful of characters, and they still have not successfully created a shared universe, despite all efforts. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is the most complete shared universe ever seen on film, and Marvel remain the only studio that has managed to unite it's heroes in a single film. The universe has been hugely influential, and DC and Sony are now attempting to piece together universes, with Dawn of Justice being a clear attempt to replicate Marvels success.

The way Marvel franchises have been portrayed on film feels more complete than DC's attempts, despite the films being spread over various studios, more characters have been adapted to film, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe feels incredibly cohesive and a very impressive undertaking. Whereas the DC universe, while once great now feels tired and in need of rebuilding, and their attempts to create a shared universe between the Batman and Superman franchises feels rushed and forced.

Prizefight: Leonardo Vs Redford

Anyone who knows me, or who reads my blog on a regular basis will tell you that i am a huge fan of The Great Gatsby, and all derivative works, including the films and even the soundtracks. This post represents the first in a new series called prizefights, in which i will pit competitors together, and decide which one is better, in this case i am comparing two performers who played Jay Gatsby, Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2013 film, and Robert Redford in the 1974 version. In this case the two will be compared on their acting, closeness to the source material, fashion and how iconic their performances have become.

For me, Gatsby is something of a fashion icon, and the 1974 defined the throback twenties fashion of the decade, the film propelled designer Ralph Lauren to international stardom, and was able to rewrite history, and retrospectively altered the way most people defined fashion in the twenties. The 2013 version takes a similar approach, and modernizes the fashion of the era, with the men wearing boots, trousers being more tailored and slim, and jackets no longer being belted, but featuring slim waistcoats and tie pins. Although the fashion of the 1974 film is arguably more iconic, and had more of an influence of the fashion of the era, the fashion of the 2013 version of Gatsby is more true to the era, more imaginative, and personally, i find it more chic.

Both Redford and DiCaprio are tremendous actors, and it is very hard to compare their performances, as they are both spectacular, Redford portrays Gatsby as being very smooth, as a slick buisnessman, and as a man who never looses his cool, and a man who is stable in his belief that Daisy will always love him, DiCaprio's Gatsby is more loose, he does loose his cool, we start to see the man behind the character, the inner being behind the facade that he has created, and we begin to see his true colours. The 2013 Gatsby is also far more forthcoming about his past than the 1974 version was, he openly tells Nick about his past and he is unashamed of all that he has done, so whilst the portrayals are different, neither is really better than the other, and these are both fine actors at the absolute top of their game.

The 2013 film is certainly more faithful to the source material than the 1974 version, in the novel, Jay Gatsby is pitiful and childish, he has a naive belief that he can change the past, that he can wipe out Daisy's history with Tom, and that they can recapture what they once had, DiCaprio's Gatsby is similar to this, he is whiney and churlish, he throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way and he becomes violent when Daisy won't obey him, this is in complete contrast to his character earlier in the film, when he is more slick and polished. There is something pathetic about the character in the film, as there is in the book, whereas Redford's Gatsby is too cool and slick, and doesn't have the ragged edges that the character in the book does.

In terms of iconography, there is little competition. Redford for a long time was the ultimate Gatsby, his performance redefined the way the novel was read and imagined, his performance is strong, iconic and powerful, and he defines not just the character or film, but the whole of the seventies in some ways, his portrayal of the character, the way the character dress and his hairstyle are iconic images. Overall, it's a tough call, both actors have factors in their favour, however Leonardo DiCaprio's performance, the way the character dresses, his smooth yet rough around the edges performance is a fantastic adaptation of the novel, and, for me, he represents the character as i imagine him from the source material.

Feminism: The Discussion

The fact that this is an article that even needs to be written saddens me greatly, but it must. Last weekend, two action films were released, the R rater Lucy featuring the definitely female Scarlett Johansson and the PG-13 rated Hercules, starring the definitely male Dwayne Johnson. These are two fairly similar movies, not thematically but in terms of marketing and quality. Both films were marketed on the strengths of their stars, and both have similar metascores. Dwayne Johnson is an undeniably charismatic actor, this year i proclaimed him to be the only true action hero left, and he was the highest grossing actor of 2013. What was surprising to industry insiders was that Lucy won, it grossed more than Hercules despite having a female lead and being rated R.

For years filmmakers have been reticent about making high budget films with female leads. Despite the fact that women make up 52% of the population and, like men, do go and see films, and despite the fact that men also like going to see films with female leads. The figures speak for themselves, Lucy made $44 million at the box office, and was evenly split between men and women. 2013 was also a remarkable year for women in film. For the first time since 1973, the highest grossing film at the US domestic box-office had a lead female character, the film was Catching Fire, starring Jennifer Lawrence. The highest grossing film worldwide was Frozen, an animated adaptation of The Snow Queen featuring not one but two leading female characters, and finally of the films nominated for the best picture Oscar, the highest grossing nominee was Gravity, which was not only a film with a lead female character, but a film with only a female character, in addition, the highest grossing comedy of the year was The Heat, a film, again, featuring two female leads. It seems that people don't mind seeing films starring women, who knew?

Studio executives are notorious cowards, we live in a world where there are plenty of fantastic films, but where most of them are low budget independent films, for instance of the Best Picture nominees, only gravity was a studio financed film, the others were independent's, only distributed by major studio's. The problem is that studio's will only release a film if it can be turned into a franchise, or merchandised, thus many high budget action films featuring women simply never see the light of day. The problem is that studio's, which do so much research and polling, fail to understand and struggle with change. Hollywood is a world, where when something works we just keep doing the same thing, the problem is that films with male leads make money, and so there is no impetus for studios to place women above the marquee.

The biggest problem with the film industry is that it doesn't show any sign of changing, the world is round, women make up half of the western worlds population, and like men, women also like to go and see movies. It is time for studios to wake up and realize that female driven films can be successful, that women are just as funny as men, and that men are not repulsed by the idea of going to see a film with a female lead. Films with women at the helm are some of the most successful films released today, and studio executives must start to realize that.

Adapting Wonderland

I will start today's post, like so many, with a story, the other night i decided to watch Tim Burton's 2010 adaptation of Alice In Wonderland, a happy accident lead to me actually watching the Walt Disney 1951 animated classic. I had seen the animated film before, but not for some years, and in re-watching the movie, i discovered it to be an interesting an beautiful picture if not a particularly watchable one, i watched the Tim Burton version the following day, and found it to be again a beautiful picture but nonetheless a flawed one.

Disney adapted Alice in Wonderland first in 1923 as a 21 year old student, however the film, which was part live action was never released to the public, and after the success of Snow White in 1938 he decided to make the film, Disney made several attempts to streamline the story and convert Carroll's nonsense literature into something less episodic and more suitable for film, however with limited success, as the movie still feels highly disjointed. Tim Burton's Alice is far more successful, however i use the word more with caution, as the story still has problems, despite being far more effectively streamlined, the story still lacks an emotional connection, and we never really get to know Alice Kingsley as a person, despite her being given a slightly more fleshed out back story than in the original film. The plot of the film is more successful, Burton creates a trajectory and a story arc for Alice that is lacking in the original version, unfortunately the plot, although successful uses a plot device about a character embracing their destiny which at this point is incredibly overused.

Visually both films are stunning, the 1951 film was designed mainly by Mary Blair, who would subsequently become renowned for her work on the theme park ride Its A Small World, the film is a visually delightful psychedelic adventure, no doubt slightly LSD inspired, however the imagery in this version remains reasonably light, the 2010 adaptation is another story. Tim Burton's film, is, to put is simply, a Tim Burton film. The film is visually quite dark, and the world of wonderland was created entirely on a green screen. This was not entirely de rigeur at the time like it is now, and Alice In Wonderland was really only the second film after Sky Captain to use this technique.

Extensive green-screen usage is seen to be incredibly easy, but it is actually incredibly difficult and can be jarring if not used properly, Oz the Great And Powerful used a similar effect for the Brick Road sequences, and with no reference point between the actors and their environments, and no interaction, everything looks out of perspective, and the actors look oddly small, this effect is absent from Alice, and this is partly due to Burton successfully blending the actors with their environments, some characters are entirely CGI, some are a blend of CGI and live action, some are live action that has been modified using CG, such as the Red Queen's head and Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The film is a seamless blend, and although being visually spectacular, the effect was never jarring.

Both films were hugely influential, the 1951 film which rode on the wave of fairy tale adaptations started by Snow White, and it later convinced Disney to search for the rights to other literary works such as Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh and Mary Poppins. The 2010 film was responsible for the recent wave of fairy tale live action adaptations which include the recently released Malecifent and Oz, The Great and Powerful. The film was also responsible for studios taking fairy tale heroines and making them warriors in armour with a sword, a trend which is rarely well achieved. However both of these films remain visually delighting adventures.

Spring Breakers Vs The Bling Ring

Well i recently watched Spring Breakers, and i am happy to report that i was pleasantly surprised, i found the film to be surprisingly beautiful and well directed, if being perhaps a little pretentious. Earlier this year, just before the summer break i wandered through the murky sun drenched streets to see The Bling Ring, Sofia Coppola's latest directorial effort. Spring Breakers is about a group of college age girls, who rob a fast food restaurant to have enough money to go on spring break, and who descend into a violent subculture of guns, sex and gang warfare.

What differentiates these films most of all is their narrative structure, The Bling Ring is based upon an article by Nancy Jo Sales that first appeared in Vanity Fair, and the film uses the researching of this article to tell the story. The film uses interviews with the films protagonists in order to tell the story, and the film has a tight chronological narrative structure. Spring Breakers on the other hand is more of a collection of images, and the film uses repetitive narration and imagery to tell the story, and the story is much less tightly structured, and narration from scenes at the beginning of the film will be reused at the end.

What also differentiates these films is the motivations of the protagonists, the protagonists of Spring Breakers are motivated not by greed or materialism, but by a culture that has conditioned them to believe that spring break has to be a kind of agressive fun. When the girls get to florida they engage in activities that are repetitive and boring, yet they tell everyone that they are having a fantastic time and that Florida is somehow spiritual. The motivations of The Bling Ring are somewhat different, their crimes are motivated by materialism and by a worship of celebrity culture, their crimes aren't actually committed in the pursuit of things or objects themselves, but by wanting to feel like celebrities themselves, and by wanting to belong to this world.

These films do share similarities in that they both feature spectacular performances in supporting roles. In Spring Breakers, James Franco has a star turn as Alien, a rapper and gangster who pulls these girls into his world of guns, sex and drugs. In The Bling Ring, Emma Watson plays Nicki, a young, glass eyed woman entirely devoid of any personality, Watson is fantastically manipulative in this role, and she proves that it is possible to play a person devoid of personality, who is not a boring or two dimensional.

The films also look different, The Bling Ring is shot in a vaguely cinema verité style, using handheld techniques and digital cameras. Spring Breakers on the other hand uses a more indie feeling, with day glo colors and slow, smooth camera movements. Both films are interesting as showing aspects of youth culture and trash culture, however both films fail to show us inside the heads of their main characters, particularly Spring Breakers, and we never know why they commit these acts. However i enjoyed both films, and i commend their daring and spunk.