The Lego Movie is lovely, and attempts to be subversive

The Lego Movie has generated a lot of positive buzz since its release on February 7, and the rating over at Rotten Tomatoes is hovering around 96%. In fact, box office success has been so great, the Warner Brothers studio is wasting no time planning for a sequel to be released in 2017. My favorite geek site The Mary Sue has given The Lego Movie a positive review. However, if you look at the comments for that linked article, and if you have recently read their piece on a nostalgia LEGO ad from the 1980s and the article that inspired it, this fun family movie and the toy it is based on has created some complicated feelings in fans of both LEGO and of films, myself included.

       

I've had some experience with LEGO in my life. Having two brothers who were big fans of the toy, I was constantly exposed to play sets encouraging creativity and others meant to be models that would easily snap together by following the instructions. Pirates, Jedi Knights, space exploration, and Bionicle cyber warriors were common games with my brothers that would inevitably implicitly or explicitly exclude me. I was also constantly exposed to the idea that LEGO was not for a girl like me, as shown by how my brothers would hoard all the pieces in their room and that LEGO was only found in the boys' section at toy stores. If I wanted to make or build something, I would have to content myself with LEGO knockoffs in pink and purple, or play with a different brand entirely such as K'Nex. Granted, my brothers didn't want to share any of their toys with me, mostly because I terrorized my older brother since I could walk by stealing his toys, but that's a story for another time. My point is, when I saw this movie advertised, I wasn't expecting them to cater to a female demographic at all, based entirely on my childhood experience with LEGO.

Now after seeing the film, let me say that the primary description I can give of this movie is FUN. The characters, music, humor, and the animation all give a feel of what I remember LEGO being about -- a fun time for kids to build and be creative. It's very childlike in its comedy and for most of the story. It does do some unique plot turns, but overall remains a quintessential monomyth, as the movie poster says, of a nobody who saved everybody. Monomyth, as described by Joseph Campbell, as some may recall from my analysis of Disney and Pixar films, is a pattern theorized to occur in pretty much every world mythology and influences many stories today (watch a video essay of this topic here). This film, for all its promise of nonstop action, fun, and adventure, is about that opposing force in LEGO for either unrestrained creative building, or to build a perfect model by following the package instructions. It also gets really meta, but it's not hard to spot the hints of this plot thread as the film goes on. Another positive point is that the animation in this movie is especially incredible. It is CGI, but the frame rate is dropped and all the characters, environments, and even special effects such as fire or lasers are done so that it looks like a stop-motion animation style made with real LEGO toys! Heck, there is one scene out in the ocean, and the entire ocean surface is behaving like water, but has each little bump on the surface as if it was made from real LEGO!

That being said, there is a lot of debate in various internet forums over whether the two most prominent female characters, Wyldstyle and Princess Unikitty are positive representations of women. There are legitimate points on either side of this argument, which because the film is also a giant advertisement for LEGO, also brings into question how LEGO markets itself and creates gendered dichotomy in its toys. This complexity about female representation, in addition to other points in the plot that really didn't gel with the rest of the story for me, keeps it from being perfect in my mind. Still, if you like silliness, action, adventure, and LEGO, there's no reason not to see The Lego Movie at least once. I will warn you though, there is a song in the beginning that will meld with your mind and never leave.

Final rating 4/5 stars. Click on the jump for a discussion on the gender representations in this movie. Spoilers!

The Hobbit, and My Complex Love of Tolkien

Not really spoilers ahead for The Hobbit movies. Technically the book too, but for something that's been around in the popular consciousness since 1937 I think is less a spoiler than indicating something exists.

First off, it should surprise no one that I really like Tolkien even with all the flaws. He was an English professor and really loved mythology, so I can at least dig his chosen subject matter even if I find the execution sometimes falling rather short. I may not be as incredibly familiar with all of his works as others, but The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were part of my childhood in the form of the books and animated films, and to this day it is still something I remember with great fondness. That being said, the film adaptations of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit thus far are, let's just say, giving me complicated feels. On the one hand, they are visually well done, clearly trying to stay faithful to the source material, and are some incredible examples of the film medium. On the other hand, Peter Jackson has made a very bloated and overly complicated adaptation of what is supposed to be a more lighthearted and fun prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. This movie has a lot more pacing problems than the first Hobbit film, which is really saying something.

The original novel was just over 300 pages, so everyone knew Peter Jackson would have to be padding the hell out of the plot to extend the story into three films. The thing is, for pretty much a significant of the movie, I was taken out of the experience by trying to guess what was going to happen next from what I already knew about the story. A lot of scenes that actually happen fairly quickly in the book are drawn out by fancy action scenes. I'm not really against fancy action scenes generally, and I'm sure a lot of internet people have already gushed about the river barrel scene; however, I kept questioning the whole time when it was going to be over because the film was nearly two hours in and we still needed to get to Lake Town and from there to the Lonely Mountain and deal with the dragon Smaug. I kept getting the feeling that we were rushing the main plot, but at the same time taking forever to get there.

Another common point of contention in these movies is all the references to later events in The Lord of the Rings. To that I say that it was quite clear with the first film, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, that Peter Jackson was going to remind us every step of the way that all of these events happen before those of the The Lord of the Rings. Which brings me to what some reviewers have already realized: these films aren't for the general public, they are for the fans. All of the extended scenes, bonus content, and other extra information included with these movies is to bring Tolkien's works to life as best as can be done in an early 21st century Western society, while still subtly reinforcing problematic issues Western culture has dealt with for a very long time. That being said, there are some glaring flaws in the second movie released, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, that are not entirely related to the same issues as a lot of films that are in the middle of a trilogy. Since this film is only part of the whole story, no matter where it finishes, the action is going to be halted in a bizarre way that will more likely leave audiences angry than eager to continue. At least it did for me. My friend and I were the only ones who screamed in frustration at the rolling of the end credits, and I haven't bothered checking for similar experiences from others. The same frustration happened with Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars, and many others too, don't pretend it didn't, I know people out there who had the same issues.

Another thing I didn't realize until it was pointed out to me is that in these film adaptations, Bilbo Baggins isn't really the hero of the story. Yes, he is heroic by virtue of the heroic things he does, but he isn't really the story here. If anything, these films are about Gandalf and Thorin. This situation is best shown by how the first Hobbit film took 40 minutes to even get to Bilbo, and the second movie has to open with about 10 minutes of Gandalf/Thorin flashback before getting to the title and where we left off last time with Bilbo and the gang. Mark my words, the third movie will focus a significant chunk on Thorin Oakenshield and his tragic downfall.

Now in terms of Tolkien's works, many people have already listed some broad issues with the entire body of fiction on Middle Earth. There is the issue of racism, since very few of the human or fantasy races have people of color as main characters, and there are also rather few POC in the backgrounds of crowd shots. There is also the issue of sexism, which Peter Jackson tried to counter by shoehorning in a romantic subplot with an original female character in the form of Tauriel in Desolation of Smaug. I don't really mind the inclusion of an original character, since Peter Jackson has been doing that the whole time with the characters of the dwarves and other minor characters that don't have much role in Tolkien's stories, but are still there. The thing is, with Tauriel, I really like her as a character, but I don't like the romance subplot she was chosen to fulfill in these movies. She is clearly quite competent at her job as a warrior of the Wood Elves, and an aspect of the story I enjoyed a great deal in the theatrical release was her ability to see the big picture of what was happening in Middle Earth at the time. However, I felt a distinct lack of romantic interest from her end in any of the male characters interested in her, but that could definitely be changed in either the extended edition of this film or else in the final movie, The Hobbit: There and Back Again. As for seeing Legolas again, that wasn't too surprising since it appeared Peter Jackson would bring back as many actors from the The Lord of the Rings as possible. It also wouldn't be that improbable that he was in The Hobbit, since his father is King Thranduil. However, if there is one thing I love that came of this movie, it's the party king Thranduil internet meme.

Something else I think people understandably struggle with is the length of these movies. These film adaptations of Tolkien's work, perhaps more so than anything else, have to be viewed all in succession in order to appreciate the scope of story happening. Waiting each year between theatrical releases makes it difficult to pick up where the action left off, which makes it difficult to become reinvested with what's happening to the characters. It also doesn't help that a lot of the history, mythology, and heck, character development is lost with so many characters and plot meandering all over the place. There is a very good reason these films are dubbed a 16 hour walking tour of New Zealand. So, strangely enough though, my overall feeling of the Hobbit films so far is that there is both too much and too little. By the end of Desolation of Smaug I was incredibly frustrated with the story and how the characters were developing, but at the same time craving the extended edition in hopes it would make sense of the sloppy pacing.  I am also really praying to the powers that be that Tauriel won't become another Arwen pining after a non-elf lover, or worse, die off in the coming Battle of the Five Armies. Be a brave warrior woman unhindered by tacky romance subplots, Tauriel. Overturn those Hollywood conventions and rekindle my faith, Peter Jackson, I dare you.

Tl;dr watch some How It Should Have Ended wonderfulness. They'll explain it.

Selected Discussions from ART 270

"Discussion" is actually a misnomer, since very few of the assignments from this art history class required response to other people's posts. Still, the course Women in Art was quite enjoyable, but I wouldn't recommend taking a 22 day college course meant to be spread out over 15 weeks. It suffers from having to focus on nothing else but the material, making it very hard for much of it to sink in and be savored. Thought if nothing else, the course was great for learning more about the long history of exclusion, objectification, and outright abuse of women artists in Western culture, and I don't regret taking it. One of my final projects is on medieval illuminated manuscripts and the other is writing a thesis paper on the movie Brave. I got high marks on many of my discussions, so since art, criticism, and feminism are things I like writing about, well, it seems appropriate to share them!

Fair warning: Long post is long, very heavy with topics of female representation, male gaze, and art terminology. Also, trigger warning for mentions of rape.

So if you're ready, click behind the jump to read about my exciting pedagogy!