Da-da knows there are a lot of serious things going on in the world that require serious attention, but... well, this is earth where, for the time being, the E stands for Evil or Egregious. Da-da doesn't believe in Evil, per se; more apt to call it insanity, which is what it is. What Da-da sees most are people foisting said insanity on otherwise sane humans (bygones) in the guise of entertainment. Da-da himself does this all the time and it's fine, as Da-da's blog is for adults, mostly parents whose brains are still missing in action. Filmwise, insanity is a given. Take the work of David Lynch for example. However, studios don't market David Lynch movies to children.
The point Da-da's trying to make the hard way is that Disney's new movie, "Maleficent," is ostensibly marketed toward kids, showcasing Angelina Jolie being... well, creepy. Creepy and disturbing. Sure, she was already creepy and disturbing, but these are two things you want kids to avoid if you don't want them to go insane and drag you along with them.
The movie trailer creeped Da-da's boys right out.
"I'm not watching THAT," 9YO Nagurski announced after viewing the teaser, and his 7YO brother agreed. Thanks, Disney. You just saved Da-da about $50 in tickets and sundry theatrical junk food.
But these kids weren't the only ones who felt this way.
|Ug, creepy. Even the baby doesn't approve.|
Not surprisingly, the kids they tried to cast for the part of the 4YO girl victim in the movie couldn't even make it through the audition, because Jolie -- in full make-up -- frightened them so badly.
"One little kid even said, 'Mommy, please tell the mean witch to stop talking to me,'" Jolie recounted.
The only kid they could find who wasn't scared was Jolie's daughter, who of course got the part. For the record, she was scared, too, but she was used to the fear, having to live with Jolie and THAT MONSTER Brad Pitt all the time. Ever see Brad Pitt eat a burrito? (Yes, Da-da's joking. Brad only eats ground up baby unicorns.)
So, what exactly is Disney trying to do here? Exemplify the Dark Arts? (Without Snape?!) And why is it on its third director, anyway? No one wants responsibility... why? And why couldn't they just use a computer-generated Tim Curry with a new coat of paint as Maleficent? Would've been much cheaper and a lot more disturbing, if that's what they were looking for. (If you really wanna get weird, try using a floating green CG Truman Capote with horns for the sequel. Yikes.)
Horns? Tangent time!
|Horns. Tim Curry as Hellbo... er, Big Red Legendpants.|
Hm. Horns back, horns forward. In films, if the horns go back, does that mean the character is submissively evil? Or perhaps passive-aggressively evil?
|Dominant AND submissive. And derivative. Another stick, too. Hm. Da-da's not gonna go there.|
|All the pretty manbat hornage. Who are you leaving the kids with, tonight? RIGHT: the one who looks like Da-da.|
...straight-up (so to speak) Manbat hornage. And then there's...
|Oops. Sorry, Ron.|
... no, wait...
|Loki's horns looked familiar, right? Da-da loves Hellboy, and really anything written by Mike Mignola.|
...THERE he is. Horns forward AND back... but typically denied and cut off and sanded down. Aha. At least Hellboy has a sense of humor. Manbat and Maleficent and Loki and Big Red are NOT big piles of giggles. Point? On Da-da's head, chief. Ok, wherewerewe?
|Fallen-angel clean-up on aisle nine. John Constantine, get ready for your close-up.|
Da-da doesn't know about you, but there sure are a lot of horn-y dark scary beings prowling around movies these days. Is someone trying to sell us something? Or is it just faux end-times zeitgeistiness? (Note: THERE ARE NO END TIMES. It's propaganda.) Doesn't matter, but OH how this epoch will be studied ad nauseum over the next 1000 years.
Da-da won't get into the fascistic overtones of films (and sporting spectacles) over the past ten years (many by the same director), but "Maleficent" alone should make one wonder if there's indeed some ulterior motive at work. Da-da's not naturally suspicious, he simply distrusts corporations -- and banksters and politicians -- and assumes they're nearly all either devil worshipping yahoos or greedy predacious pedophiles. Or perhaps they're just misunderstood and need a hug. By a straightjacket.
Anyway, if "Maleficent" were somehow self-deprecating, or wryly fey like "Hellboy," that'd be one thing. An entertaining thing. But a black-horned evil witchiepoo delighting in scaring and torturing children? Sure. Ok. That's fine for a certain kind of movie, but this is a Disney movie! What's next, a "Ghostbuster's" remake, but without the humor?
Unless Da-da's missing something, Disney itself seems to have fallen pretty far from Walt's Happy Tree, so far that they might want to call the company something else like, "Mammonpants," or "EvilMediaDeathMachine3000." Either way, the below gentleman, were he alive, would not like his namesake's current, downspiraling direction. Fact is, he'd be pretty pissed off.
|Get up, Walt. Time to kick some butt.|
Disney has just announced a new Disney spokesperson who will also be the new Walt Disney for their newly revived, "Wonderful World of Disney." Yes, it's...
|More horns, but at least they're on a UFO.|