Does Race Have A Place in Fantasy?

Today I finally managed to see Prince Caspian a couple of weeks after its release and, generally speaking, I was impressed. It shows an improvement from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and considering how much I enjoyed that film this was no mean feat. It wasn't perfect of course; I particularly disliked the Caspian/Susan romantic subplot, and still maintain that William Moseley's Peter is the weak link of the Pevensie children (Georgie Henley was just amazing yet again). The one thing that really grated, however, was the introduction of a clan of black centaurs; not centaurs that just had darker skin, but ones with dreadlocks and slightly Caribbean accents. I wasn't sure why this annoyed me as I am in no way racist and think that many shows or films really should attempt to present non-white characters, if only for realism's sake than anything else. My issue, then, is when the desire for equality transfers from films which ape reality (SATC:The Movie's inclusion of Carrie's new black assistant, for example) to ones based firmly in fantasy, worlds where the source material makes no such distinction.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand how race can be used as a device to help audiences. Making the Telmarines appear Mediterranean, for example, means that younger viewers know which side is which. And yet there is surely a risk that children in particular may learn to associate men of such appearance with menace or malcontent; why else would Disney have preserved Jafar's Arabic accent whilst making Aladdin's accent decidedly American? The inclusion of the black centaurs thus seems a clumsy attempt on the film maker's part to break a pattern established in the fantasy films that have come before Prince Caspian.

A couple of examples strike me as particularly relevant for consideration. The Lord of the Rings trilogy uses race in a way that I neglected to notice until my third or fourth viewing. In the final film, for instance, the men riding the great oliphants to battle on the Pelennor fields are clearly dark-skinned, as are the troops marching to the Black Gate in The Two Towers. The use of dark and light is of course a common device; the big black orcs represent evil, it's not rocket science. Race, however, is obviously different to colour, so using black actors as a natural opposition to good, white characters is a transparent and lazy means to an end. Similarly, the late Wi Kuki Kaa, an actor from New Zealand with almost Aboriginal looks, was reportedly cast as the leader of the Wild Men who help the Rohirrim in the third novel. This part of the narrative didn't make it past the pre-production stages, but the point remains; the colour of a man's skin seems to have been at least in part the reason behind his casting. Surely there's something wrong with that. At least the trilogy displays some level of consistency though, matching races with the regions from whence they came. The Narnia films, however, do no such thing. Dwarves in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe seem to be East-Asian, especially those seen at the battle with long, plaited beards and the stereotypically generic Chinese/Japanese complexion. By Prince Caspian, the dwarves are now benevolent, if slightly cynical, creatures who have lost their non-Caucasian appearance. The message, one that is I'm sure not meant by those behind the films, is that good dwarves are white while bad ones are not.

I don't claim to know much about the study of race, but it doesn't take a degree in Edward Said studies to see what is being done in these films. Racial integration has no place in the fantasy genre, and while I'm sure the inclusion of dread locked centaurs seemed like a great idea at the time, it is an ineffective and unnecessary addition to what is shaping up to be an excellent franchise.

5 Reasons Why I Cannot Wait For 'The Hobbit'!

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the Lord of the Rings was just amazing, perhaps three of the best films ever made and, due to unecessary additions to the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises, it may just be the best trilogy in the history of film. The combination of critical acclaim and box office takings led to the assumption by many that it was only a matter of time before The Hobbit was greenlit, and luckily for us their assumption is spot-on. The Hobbit is on the way, with a much publicised change of director in the wonderful Guillermo del Toro. In many ways, this prequel to Tolkien's more famous series lends itself to film far more than The Lord of the Rings, with less uneventful trekking, more humour and pockets of action which will make a more fun and child-friendly movie. The film is only in the very early stages, and we'll be waiting at least three years to see it, but since when did that stop people like me talking about it? I can't wait, and here are five reasons why;

Elf Cameos! - In the book, Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves pass through Rivendell and Mirkwood, so there's definite potential for brief glimpses at Elrond, Legolas, Arwen and, by association, Aragorn! Including them in the entirety of the narrative would be stupid, but wouldn't it be great to get a quick glimpse of good old Legolas in attendance at the elves' forest feast? Won't you make it happen Guillermo? Pretty please?


The Siege of Lake-town - One of the more climactic events in the novel, when Smaug the dragon wreaks vengeance for Bilbo's theft by laying waste the nearby town, could make an excellent spectacle. I'm imagining Smaug doing Nazgul-style nose-dives through the air, with Bard the Bowman a half Aragorn, half John McClane figure; a lone hero protecting those who pay him no attention. Ooooh it's giving me goosebumps!

Beorn - Bilbo and his travel companions receive help and shelter from a mysterious and imposing forest-dwelling man who, it later turns out, also has the ability to transform into a giant black bear; half cuddly toy, half killing machine. Potentially the coolest thing in the whole book.

The Battle of the Five Armies - LOTR had some spectacular battle scenes, but we've never seen the damage that a whole lot of dwarves can do, while the warg combat in The Two Towers could be given a much greater scope here. And what's a battle of Middle Earth without eagles!?

The Chance to See How it All Began! - Bilbo. Gollum. Riddles in the Dark. 'Nuff said.



If The Hobbit follows its predecessor to a close-to-Christmas release, then we only have, what, forty months to go? It'll be done before we know it! Meanwhile, let the speculation begin!

The Jetsons Movie!

Earlier today I was sitting at my desk at my work experience placement, sneaking a sly internet session in between tasks, when a blog caught my eye and made one of my childhood dreams come true. Yes indeed, a Jetsons movie is on the way! Yes indeed, I am the lamest individual on the planet.

I really can't explain why this is such great news, but I will say that the Jetsons kicked the Flinstones' dirty prehistoric arses, and yet it is the moronic duo Fred and Barney which got the screen treatment a whole fourteen years ago. Like this 1994 film, the Jetsons will be live-action rather than animation, so I'm imagining Speed Racer-esque aesthetics and a comedic edge. But who on earth, I hear you scream, can fill those futuristic shoes of theirs? Here's my perfect cast;

George Jetson - Word on the street is that Steve Martin is being lined up for the part, which would be a decent match if it weren't for the fact that I HATE STEVE MARTIN (unless he's in The Three Amigos- GENIUS!). Anyway, I'm gunning for William H. Macy. He can act, he can do humour, and he's bored of indie films. All he needs is a ginger dye-job and he's perfect!

Jane Jetson - She's a cute red-head with smarts and sass. Julianne Moore. No arguments. She would be so much fun and hasn't had a chance to prove her talent for the light-hearted in a good few years. To be honest, I'd cast her in any film ever made.


Judy Jetson - It's a difficult one, as they have to make the most shallow member of the family worth watching whilst making the white hair-do look normal, without being a 2D imitation of Legally Blonde's Elle Woods or Cher of Clueless. I'm tempted to say Scarlett Johansson but she may be too old. You know what, who cares? This is my dream cast. We'll have Scarlett.


Elroy Jetson - He's a genius pre-schooler, so would have to be a baby voiced by an adult. Resisting the temptation to let Seth Macfarlane do his Stewie Griffin voice (so tempting!), I'll go with Zach Braff, simply for his charm as the voice of Chicken Little, and also because he's leaving Scrubs and I want to keep him around.


Rosie - Rosie is the dedicated, smart-talking house robot. After seeing the rather awful Bringing Down the House I would say that Queen Latifah would be perfection in this, with a recognisable voice and dollops of attitude. For the record, I'm not being racist by making the black actress voice the help, I just think she'd be ideal! No one combines likability with independence like the Queen.

Mr Spacely - George's boss and nemesis, there can only be one option; Kevin Spacey. He looks the part, and already has the name (almost)! CGI can be used to make him suitably short, rendering Danny DeVito a suitable yet ultimately boring choice.


If this film is half as good as it could be, I can die happy. If not, I'll have to keep my fingers crossed for a Moomins Movie. Oh God, a Moomins Movie? I'm palpitating again.

Coming to a Cinema Near You: When Books Go Bad

2008 brings with it two films which may not get most pulses racing, but has me palpitating in nervous excitement. Two of my all-time favourite novels, Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar and J.M. Coetzee's Disgrace are both making their way to the big screen, and I couldn't be happier. There's not much talk about how either film is shaping up at the moment, but so far I'm completely satisfied with one of the key decisions in staying faithful to a novel; casting. David Lurie and Esther Greenwood, the protagonists of Disgrace and The Bell Jar respectively, will be brought to life by the amazing John Malkovich and severely underrated Julia Stiles, and in my opinion those involved in securing these individuals deserve a pat on the back. Both are perfect for these meaty roles and I'm sure they can pull it off. Hell, they even look the part, with Stiles sporting a fairly Bell Jar look in 2003's Mona Lisa Smile (left) and John Malkovich in an on-screen shot (right).

But then again, looking at Hollywood's track record when it comes to adapting truly great novels to the screen, perhaps I should be a little more worried about my beloved books. Some of my other favourites have, after all, been absolutely and irrevocably decimated by their celluloid counterparts. Here's my list of the top 5 awful film adaptations;

1. The Hunchback of Notre Dame - Yeah, Yeah. I know that Disney is for kids, but why did they even bother? This film, which I actually loved when young enough to not understand what had been done to the plot, ends with the dashing Phoebus falling in love with gypsy Esmerelda, encouraged by the lonely yet content hunchback of the title. Victor Hugo's book, however, goes a little differently. Well, a lot differently actually. Phoebus dies. Esmerelda dies. Quasimodo? You guessed it. He actually crawls into a ditch and perishes in misery and isolation. Surely Disney would have been better off with a novel that actually ends happily?
2. Mrs Dalloway - One of the best novels written in the 20th century becomes one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of receiving free with the Daily Mail. The faultless Vanessa Redgrave tries her best but ultimately fails to get to grips with the eponymous party thrower, while the Septimus subplot is neither compelling nor sympathetic. I was practically willing him to jump out of the window earlier.
3. The Great Gatsby - Not the excellent 1974 version, but the TV movie from 2000. This film isn't great, but there's one thing that makes it awful; Toby Stephens is not Gatsby. He just isn't. There are no words to justify why this is the case as no one ever invented words for such a seemingly unlikely casting choice. RENT THE OLD ONE.
4. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - The franchise may have come on in leaps and bounds, but this is still shit, failing to capture the pure magical charm of Rowling's book. Also, it's just so infuriating to see gems like Julie Walters and Maggie Smith restricted to about fifteen seconds of screen time each.
5. Enduring Love - I'm not a massive fan of Ian McEwan, but it's a good 'un nonetheless. On paper, this book enthralls at every turn, making the reader question Joe's very sanity. On film, all subtlety floats away faster than the red hot air balloon of the traumatic opening, and we are left with nothing but two supremely weak performances from the usually excellent Daniel Craig and Samantha Morton.
   

We must pray that these great books go the way of The Hours, Lord of the Rings and Pride and Prejudice, all excellent adaptations, and resist the heinousness of such attrocities to human sight.