I-ma-gi-na-tion, i-ma-gi-na-tion,
A dream can be a dream come true,
One little spark in me and you.
-
Dreamfinder and Figment’s “One Little
Spark” song from Epcot’s Journey into Imagination ride.
At
the beginning of this semester, I saw Escape
from Tomorrow (2013). The plot of
the film involved a typical American family vacationing at Walt Disney
World. We join the family on their last
day at the parks, where the father, Jim (Roy Abramsohn), finds out that he has
been fired. While Jim tries to put on a
brave face as if nothing has happened, he slowly beings to unravel as the day
goes on. What follows is a study of the
despair of the post-modern idea of fatherhood, with Jim fantasizing about two
teenage French girls, having a fling with an older woman who is either a witch,
cosplaying, or another skewed entity in Jim’s mind, and contracting the
lethal cat flu. While this is by no
means a great film, nor does it paint the contemporary male in a very positive
light, the film has a vision that it pursues which is unique. It created some initial buzz because the
director, Randy Moore, filmed the movie entirely within the Disney parks and
did not inform Disney. This is important
because Disney controls its image fastidiously.
What happens in the film doesn’t really paint Disney in a negative
light. The thrust of the narrative is
the moral and psychological failings of its protagonist. What is interesting is that it places this
problem in what is known as “The Happiest Place On Earth.”
In
order to go forward, I must digress. I
grew up in two towns: Altamonte Springs
and Winter Springs. Both are in Florida
and are about an hour away from Disney World.
Disney World is not far away from the city of Orlando. For decades now, Orlando has heavily marketed
itself as THE vacation destination for not just the United States but the whole
planet. It also includes Sea World, is
an hour away from a variety of East Coast beaches (most notably Cocoa Beach,
Daytona Beach, and Port Canaveral, where the Kennedy Space Center is located),
and when I was young, there was another entertainment park which went through two
iterations: Circus World (closed 1986)
and Boardwalk and Baseball (closed 1990).
More recently, Universal Studios (opened 1990) and Islands of Adventure
(opened 1999) were added. There are
other attractions, such as Wet ‘N Wild Waterpark, Gatorland, some weirdness
called the Holy Land Experience (which reenacts Christ’s crucifixion daily …
sounds like fun). For a while, there was
an odd little place called Splendid China, which was a miniature version of
China, complete with wall, which opened in 1993 and closed in 2003 (I’m bummed
I never got to see it, but I do know one of the architects who designed the
place). Then, there’s the Orlando Magic
basketball team, lots of water sports, golf courses. In short, there is a TON of things to do in
Orlando. Just go there.
The
weirdness of how Orlando and the surrounding area has developed is that its
industry is rather single-track: it’s
all about tourism. There isn’t any real
industry to speak of. There is some
citrus around the area, but that is nowhere as prominent as it was back in the
1960s and 70s. So everything is
service-based. Even if you worked in a
fast food restaurant (I worked at the Lake Buena Vista McDonald’s for a summer
– my very first job) or gas station (as I did for a few years after high school
before I left for Ohio), you needed to be smiley and friendly. Orlando sells an image – happy happy happy. It is difficult to explain how this skews your
perception of reality in a world so rooted in make-believe and fantasy, but it
does. It can make you cynical way before
you really should be. It also fosters a
bit of a Puck-ish sense of mischief that isn’t altogether healthy. There’s a guy called Swoozie on YouTube that
has some videos about his experiences working for The Mouse which can give you
a bit more insight. It’s rare to find
people who are “from” Florida, but many people have “been” there, and there is
a gulf of experience between the two.
Oh, forgot to mention, the area outside of this tourist paradise is
where all the retirees are. They possess
a whole different set of issues.
So,
I was intrigued that Moore went commando and shot his film in Disney
World. The setting resonated with me far
more than if he had set the film in some other vacation locale. Unfortunately, I don’t think he did enough to
exploit this decision, mostly so that he wouldn’t run too afoul with Disney. Free use dictates that he couldn’t try to
duplicate a Disney “experience” with the film, like you could watch the film
and have it be in place of visiting Disney World. He even changed the song for the It’s a Small
World ride so as not to infringe on copyright.
So, I get it but am still disappointed.
There is very little Disney in his Disney film.
I
was surprised to see there was so much venom involved in the film. A few reviewers were practically salivating
to see if Moore poked fun at or denigrated the Disney machine. Outside of some enforcers (which they do have
for crowd control purposes), which could or could not be part of Jim’s
devolving mind, Disney is treated rather antiseptically. Indeed, Disney ended up not pursuing an
injunction or suing Moore. While the
plot is seedy, the setting is innocuous.
But
that is not why I’m writing this post. I
am writing this post because of something that I do find egregious with Disney and, by extension, American society
(or maybe even the state of the first world, for that matter), and that is the
decided lack of imagination I am
seeing on parade. It comes in two forms,
both of which I got to experience this Thanksgiving holiday weekend.
The
first is leveled at Disney directly.
Disney used to make GREAT films. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937),
Pinocchio (1940), Fantasia (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi
(1942). They had heartwarming
characters, laughter and tears, beautiful animations, and catchy songs. However, somewhere along the way, Disney has
lost its sense of imagination and has become the purveyor of the derivative. I’m trying to nail down when this happened,
and I would venture to say when the direct to video market started to take off,
when sequels of theatrical releases went straight to video. The first of these appears to be Beauty and the Beast: Enchanted Christmas (1997). From there, roughly half of their animation
output is for video/DVD consumption.
Yeah, I know; who can blame them?
Especially in an era where minivans come with DVD players (more on that
in a bit) and streaming video and a plethora of cable channels (especially
Disney’s own) need content. So yeah,
crank out Cinderalla III (2007) and Little Mermaid III (2008). Release another Tinker Bell adventure. People will buy it.
What
happens is that everything starts to repeat itself, so much so that when it
comes to spitting out another theatrical release (which needs to happen around Christmastime and during the summer in order
to maximize profit), the well is not just dry; they are fracking it. It used to be that Disney liked to reinvent
fairy tales and draw from folklore. And
they still sort of try to do that. Take
the completely forgettable Tangled
(2010), which tries vainly to breathe new life into Rapunzel. It was eye-rollingly tedious. This year’s model is something called Frozen (2013), which I went to under
protest. It is the story of two sisters,
Elsa and Anna (who are princesses, because this is Disney). Elsa, the older sister, has some sort of
magical power (the how and why of which are not explained, so who cares?) that
causes her to create ice (because if she created fire, they’d have to call the
movie Melted, which doesn’t have the
same holiday connotations). She
accidentally injures Anna and is sequester away so she can’t hurt
anybody ever again. Tragically (gasp!),
the king and queen die on a sea voyage, and the two daughters live out their
youth, isolated from each other. When Elsa
comes of age for a coronation, the castle is opened, and Anna revels in the
opportunity to finally get out of the house (why she hasn’t been able to leave,
we don’t know – it is her sister that is under lock and key - but again, not
explained, so who cares?). She meets a
charming prince and falls madly in love at first sight. Elsa is against them marrying, and the
ensuing argument sets off Elsa’s ice powers (you wouldn’t like her when she’s
angry), and she freezes the kingdom and runs away to an architecturally
interesting ice castle where she can finally be herself and not have to hide
anymore. Anna then sets off to seek out
Elsa in the hopes that she will unfreeze the world and come back home and live
happily ever after. This sets up
conflicts about Anna falling for the rugged Kristoff (even though she is
supposedly engaged to the dreamy Hans, but he turns out to be evil later on, so
who cares?), Elsa learning to control her ice power through love instead of
fear, and sisterly love. Everything about
the plot is telegraphed by the trailers and relentless marketing (my niece and
nephew had books of the movie before its release). The characters are one-dimensional
archetypes. It’s … so … boring. The only redeeming aspect is the requisite
fun, sidekick-y character. In this
movie, it is Olaf, the snowman. But even
then, he reminded me a lot of the character Yes Man from Fallout New Vegas. That
overenthusiastic, innocent, happy character that says cute things.
I’ll
admit I am probably being a trifle unfair to Frozen, as my nieces and nephew seemed to enjoy it. But they haven’t really hit critical thinking
yet (oldest is 9), so everything is good except a majority of vegetables. But for me, my soul took a hit. Is this the same studio that made little
tears fall from my young eyes while watching The Fox and the Hound? Is
this the group responsible for the witty writing of The Emperor’s New Groove?
What happened? Are all stories
told? Where’s the original
thinking? Oh yeah, I know. That’s Pixar.
Toy Story, Ratatouille, Up. Right. So what did Disney do? Buy Pixar.
Fuck you, John Lasseter. No, that’s
not fair either. Lasseter had a big hand
of getting the deal between Studio Ghibli and Disney and has always been a big
promoter of Miyazaki. Ok, a grumbling
thanks to Lasseter. But when there’s
less competition in the market, what happens?
Stagnation. And I’m sorry, but
there’s nothing about Cars (2006) or Planes (2013) that makes me want to see
those films (What’s next? Boats?
Trains?). The imagination factories that once made
Disney inspire animation creation around the world with Mickey Mouse is now a
cookie-cutter money maker (Frozen
made over $67 million dollars Thanksgiving weekend – in its first seven days of
release, it has made almost $94 million dollars – oh my god).
But
perhaps I am placing the blame on the wrong group. There were a lot of people who ponied up
money (me included) for the privilege of having 108 minutes wasted, not
spending quality time with relatives, watching Frozen. It’s our big, dumb fault. How did we all fail so miserably? That brings me to my second point. The capacity to imagine is being slowly drained
from our minds. I take that back – this
is not slow regression. It is taking
place within a few generations. Now I’m
going to sound like an old, crotchety person, but the influx of technology is
sapping our imaginative capacity. No one
is bored anymore. They are glued to
their iPhones, iPads, video games, Kindles and other entertainment
devices. Hanging around my nieces and
nephew (and my two year old niece knows how to operate an iPad flawlessly), I
can see them immersed in their own worlds of their choosing (their apps and
games). You may be saying that a similar
argument was made when books were invented, the great leap forward we made with
the printing press and literacy. But
that promoted imagination, not
squelched it. Reading is an active
process, and you have to create the pictures and interpretations of the content
internally. What about radio? That’s only voice. Your brain still had to fill in the
blanks. The backwards slide, I hate to
say it, is film. Sure, you can watch a
film actively, but most people don’t.
For the majority, it is dispensable entertainment that leaves you soon
after you view it. Television is the
same as well. There are no blanks or
gaps, but there is interpretation. If
anything, playing a video game is more active (or reactive). But this constant interaction with something that
is designed to cater to your every whim is dangerous. It gives the user the impression that they
should never have to be without entertainment with something they find interesting. It
shortens attention spans and robs us of periods of time where our minds can
wander. What happens when you were a kid
(or heck, even as an adult) where you’re on a road trip somewhere and you are
staring out the window at the world and your mind drifts to daydreaming? You are creating that world. How can you create that world if you are
watching a DVD or playing a Nintendo DS?
The more we allow others to provide us content so that in turn we
provide none for ourselves by ourselves and our own agencies, the more we lose
the capacity to imagine. Those synapses
won’t fire as frequently, while other synapses, the ones keyed into what’s in
front of our faces, will strengthen.
What will this look like in 80 years?
I
know this is sounding rather maudlin, and I’m sorry. I’m pretty sick about it myself. I sat at tables in restaurants and watched my
niece and nephew buried in their phones.
When their father took the phones away and “forced” the children to
interact, it seemed more like they were counting down the minutes before they
could get back to what they wanted. When
my sister appeared upset with me that I went back to my mom’s house after
dropping off the kids after a trip to Toys ‘R Us to buy them Christmas gifts,
and my nephew promptly descended into the downstairs game room to play his new
copy of Lego Marvel Super Heroes,
that I wasn’t going to hang out and spend “quality time” with the kids, I
couldn’t muster the requisite guilty feeling that I knew I was supposed to
have.
No comments:
Post a Comment