The Tale of Peter Rabbit (and why I'm losing hope for today's children's movies)

I'm mad. I'm very VERY mad.

It's not just one of those things where I get a little bit ticked off. No, I'm actually mad at people in the film-making business who are making "kids movies" these days. Almost every "kids movie" in the last few years has involved adult humor in order to make it "funny," as if that's the kind of stuff that "kids movies" are made of. I've mostly just brushed it off, and enjoyed the few kids movies these days that actually at least TRY to tell a story for kids (seriously, watch The Peanuts Movie, it's great).

But then this happened:

I'm sure most of you have seen the trailer for this piece of trash already, but in case you haven't, here it is (though if you don't want a fond childhood memory to be permanently scarred, then I suggest you don't):

Now, Peter Rabbit is not officially a fairy tale, but this is one of those rare cases where I break from tradition and consider it a fairy tale anyway. I mean, just think about it. It (as well as the other stories by its author, Beatrix Potter) has nearly all the elements that make a fairy tale (apart from magic):

• Morality lessons, sometimes to the extent of nightmarish events happening.
• Talking animals.
• Magic (at least as far as The Tailor of Gloucester is concerned)
• Characters that do something stupid and then learn their lesson at the end (okay, this happens in a lot of modern stories too, but it is also common in folklore).
• They have elements that I barely glimpsed at as a kid. but when I read them now I am genuinely shocked.

I don't even want to go through the entire list. These stories are freaking folklore without technically being folklore, and they are still awesome when I read them as an adult. Therefore, this counts as a fairy tale on my blog. (Ever since it hit the public domain, it's been popping up in multiple fairy tale books anyway, so I think my opinion is safe)

For some context, I must explain my history with these stories, and how big of a role they play in my childhood.

I had this book as a kid (and I still have it):

I don't know how I got that book, but I assume it must have been given to me by my maternal grandmother, because she had the exact same book at her house. And these stories are some of the earliest I can remember being read to me (possibly before The Three Bears, but I can never be sure).

Now, if you haven't heard The Tale of Peter Rabbit before, then here's what it's about:

A young rabbit named Peter disobeys his mother, and goes into Mr. McGregor's garden, where he is chased around, then gets lost, loses his clothes, and then finally finds his way out and learns not to be so foolish.

Yeah, a summary isn't ever going to do this story justice. Go read the story yourself if you haven't. And afterwards, also read The Tale of Benjamin Bunny. The story is incomplete without that story immediately following it, and I just don't want to imagine a world where such a sequel doesn't exist.

So, these stories were some of my favorites back in the day, and that's probably the reason I also watched this video to death (yes, it's another Golden Book video):

I absolutely love it. Of course, Beatrix Potter's original illustrations are still thousands of times better than Amye Rosenberg's illustrations will ever be. The cartoony feel of the Rosenberg illustrations is cute, but there's just a certain element of the original illustrations that I've never seen captured by any other artist; very surreal realism. I know that sounds goofy, but that's the best I can describe. Potter designed very realistic looking animals, and still made them identifiable the sympathize with.

I mean, just look:

One of my favorite illustrations is of the moment where Mr. McGregor's cat is approaching the basket that Peter and Benjamin are hiding in. It has a very foreboding feel to it that I even noticed as a kid.

 Not only did I grow up with the books and the Golden Book video adaptation, but when I visited Grandma, she had a VHS tape called "The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Benjamin Bunny." This adapted the two stories into a twenty-five minute long animated movie. And I think I speak for nearly everyone when I say it's still the best adaptation of the stories. Heck, it even uses the same designs from the illustrations. If you pause the movie in the right places, you'll literally be looking at a recreation of an illustration.

The same company also made adaptations of some of the other stories, and my Grandma had some of those too. Eventually, my Mom bought copies of the episodes, the unfortunate thing being that most of character voices on the versions she bought for me to watch at home were re-dubbed by American voice actors (I can't find footage of the American dub, but it's not as good as the original, trust me).

So I watched these videos, and they are still movies that I will get out once in a while and pop into the VCR just for the sake of re-living my childhood.

And then, about a year ago, I heard the news of a new adaptation that would use a combination of live-action and CGI.

Now, I knew from the start that no adaptation made today is going to be out the animated version that I watched as a kid. It's literally impossible. These stories have a lot of things in them that would never be allowed in kids movies today:

Smoking

Corporal punishment

And lots of other things. Not to mention the fact that the villains in the stories are never ever taken care of. The villains always get away scot-free (though in a couple of cases, particularly in "The Flopsy Bunnies" and "Mr. Tod," the villains are comically humiliated). In one of the most nightmarish stories of the collection, "The Roly-Poly Pudding" (which is about two rats wrapping a kitten in dough and butter with the intention of eating him), the two villain rats are specifically stated in the text to go and bother someone else at the very end of the story (though the two obedient kittens from the story at least show some justice by capturing their children, though the one the rats tried to eat remains traumatized for life). None of this stuff bothered me as a kid, but looking back on it as an adult really has me scratching my head about why this kind of stuff happens in these stories.

But, despite this, I told myself that a new adaptation of the story, whether or not it was sugar-coated or not, would still likely introduce this current generation to the classic story.

And then the trailer came out. I clicked on it, and for the first ten seconds, I was pleased.

Then, after those ten seconds were over, it became instantly clear that the filmmakers were crapping on the classic, and telling a stupid, generic partying story with adult humor.

It's just all wrong. Peter Rabbit is not the partying type. Mr. McGregor is supposed to be a grouchy old man who the characters are afraid of, not a stereotypical screaming young man. Every single freaking thing about the trailer is wrong, the worst part being the very end when it says "Peter Rabbit," for the simple reason that giving this movie that title is insulting.

If the filmmakers want to tell a story like that, why do they have to use Peter Rabbit, a character completely unrelated to this kind of story? Like, why don't they instead make an adaptation of freaking Pigs in the House, which is much closer in spirit to the kind of movie they are making?

I wish I could have recorded my reaction to that trailer, because no one else besides one of my brothers was there to see my reaction. And I can tell you, it was the worst reaction to a trailer I have ever had. I could have been listening to it with headphones in while in class, and every student would have known that I was seeing something appalling, just from the facial expressions I made.

I was at a loss for words for nearly an entire day after that, and I still can't believe this is happening. I'm still waiting to either wake up and discover I'm having a horrible nightmare, or for the filmmakers to finally reveal that the trailer is just a joke, and they don't seriously intend to make this awful film. If someone from this year had time traveled to me a couple years ago and told me this movie was happening, I'd have thought they were pulling my leg, because I just can't see someone having the nerve to do this to the story. But, unfortunately, it IS happening. This movie is going to get made, whether I like it or not. And it is going to suck.

Will I ever get over it? I don't know. These kinds of things can scar me for life, and it is truly the most appalling thing that I've ever seen on YouTube.

Now, if you'll please excuse that long rant, I need to go to bed and get some rest./

PNB Nutcracker (1986) Review

This is probably the longest I've ever gone without posting on my blog. I'm sorry guys. I've been having so many technical difficulties. My computer had problems, and my internet connection was slow, and it was just a disaster.

Anyway, there's a lot I could post about, but I came across something recently that I thought might be cool to make a post about.

A few weeks ago, I discovered Tubi TV, which is kind of like Netflix only it's absolutely free, and is also legal because it streams the movies in a similar way to cable television, by having ads every ten minutes or so. And while this can get annoying, it means that there are movies I can finally see that I haven't been able to see yet.

One of these movies was the 1986 film, "Nutcracker," which is based on the version of the ballet from Pacific Northwest Ballet, and has sets designed by Maurice Sendak (who also illustrated the version of the original book that is translated by Ralph Manheim, which I've heard good things about but have never read before). I am one of probably only a few people these days that was introduced to The Nutcracker through the ETA Hoffmann book (it was an abridged version, but was faithful), and did not even know about the ballet until a few years later. You can probably imagine I found the ballet underwhelming, but it has grown on me over the years, due to it's wonderful charm. I have seen many versions of the ballet now (though never a live version), and I have heard many good things about the PNB version, but have never gotten to actually see it until a few days ago.

Now, this is not a standard production of The Nutcracker. While the basic plot points are still the same as the traditional version, this version has a more sinister overtone, and is intended to be a coming-of-age story, depicting Marie's sexual awakening (which presumably is the interpretation that the producers of this version got from the book, despite the fact that this is still a loose adaptation, like all the other versions), which, while subtle enough that young children likely won't pick up on it, still makes this production one of the more surreal and potentially disturbing versions.

The film begins with Godpapa Drosselmeyer sleeping with his head on his workbench, while the opening credits run over various shots of his clockwork inventions (which made me think of the opening sequence of Back to the Future somewhat). After the credits finish, Drosselmeyer wakes up, and begins working on creating a miniature theatre complete with a stage. This is when the Overture starts playing, over the montage of him making the theatre. Now, with any other production, I would have said that the Overture should have been played over the opening credits in order to save the movie's length (I complain every time I watch Sound of Music, where there's about three minutes of just landscapes accompanied by music, and then a scene, and then the opening credits, which could have easily been played over the landscapes at the beginning. Maybe I just don't understand art, but I like things to be practical). However, in this case, I think it works to have the credits be accompanied by nothing but clockwork noises and have the Overture play over the following scene. It's a nice montage that feels right, and also sets the tone for what's to come; namely that it's not the version of Nutcracker that you are probably used to.

After Drosselmeyer finishes building the theatre, the camera zooms in on it, and the curtain opens to reveal Marie in bed, sleeping. The voice of a grown-up Marie comes on and narrates the story. She talks about how her father said that her mother attracted so many guests at parties because she was beautiful, a thing that Marie could hardly wait to be. She also tells about how Drosselmeyer used to tell her that beauty does not matter, and she mentions that despite how much she like Drosselmeyer, he can be creepy and spiteful sometimes, giving her horrible dreams, in this case one that comes on the Christmas Eve before her 13th birthday. We see Marie's dream as miniatures of herself and her brother Fritz on the bed next to her, fighting. A man walks up to Marie and dances with her, but Fritz sends a mouse up to her to scare her, and her face briefly turns into a rat face and she wakes up.

The movie then cuts to a montage of different Christmas meals being baked, and then to the Christmas Party, where the March begins.

Drosselmeyer arrives a few minutes later, and I just have to say that this version of the character is creepy. He's always looking at Marie as if he has some sort of infatuation with her, despite the fact that he's an old man and she's a twelve-year-old, and he gives the rest of the kids ordinary presents (including a mouse puppet for Fritz that freaks Marie out), but gives Marie a model castle with clockwork dancers inside of it (played by actual people). Marie is constantly trying to distance herself from him, but he keeps trying to get her attention.

Drosselmeyer doesn't even give her the Nutcracker in this version. Rather, Marie finds it inside the Christmas tree during a piece of music that I've never heard in any version of The Nutcracker that is accompanied by three dancers in masks; one dressed as a mouse, one dressed as a woman or something, and one dressed as an ugly goblin thing. I don't quite see the point of this little piece. One article I read somewhere suggested that it was some sort of pantomime version of the "Hard Nut" story from the original Hoffmann book, but I don't see that at all in the sequence.

Marie is obsessed with the Nutcracker, much to Drosselmeyer's disappointment, and she dances with it. Fritz sneaks up and grabs the Nutcracker and beats it with a wooden sword, destroying its jaw, and absolutely terrifying Marie, who actually runs to Drosselmeyer for comfort. Wanting to cheer her up, Drosselmeyer binds up the Nutcracker with a handkerchief and sets him on the table. The guests all do a dance and depart, and the kids go to bed.

Marie gets up in the middle of the night to remove the Nutcracker from the table and put him in the cupboard. And what follows has to be the most intense version of "The Battle" that I've ever seen. Marie backs up after putting the Nutcracker in the cupboard, and accidentally steps on the tail of a mouse (possibly another Hoffmann nod). The mice run all around the room, and Marie looks up at the clock to see Drosselmeyer with a very sinister smile on his face. We see the inside of the cupboard, where the handkerchief falls from the Nutcracker, revealing his jaw miraculously restored, and he opens and closes his mouth.

The Mouse King rises from the floorboards, initially sporting just one head, but as the room grows bigger, puffs of smoke erupt around him, and with each puff the Mouse King becomes bigger and gains another head. A giant jack-in-box pops open, and the Nutcracker leaps out of it and begins fighting the Mouse King and his men (unfortunately, a Wilhelm Scream takes me out of the movie for a few seconds).

Marie takes off her shoe, which begins to glow, and throws it at the (now gigantic) Mouse King, causing him to explode and transform into a tiny mouse, which the Nutcracker chases through the sleeve of the enormous cloak that it wore (another Hoffmann nod). Marie walks through as well after waiting a bit, and finds the Nutcracker transformed into a Prince at the other end. This production also takes a cue from the Vainonen production by having Marie transform into an adult when she enters the fantasy world, an idea that I've always liked, as it leaves a lot of room for interpretation about Marie's character.

Marie and the Prince, instead of visiting a candy kingdom like they traditionally do, sail across the ocean to an exotic palace, ruled by a Pasha who is played by the same guy as Drosselmeyer, and who also has some sort of weird infatuation with Marie.

The Pasha tries to dance with Marie, but Marie wants to dance with the Prince instead, which disappoints the Pasha. The Pasha then puts on a big show, with a whole bunch of dancers from different parts of the world.

The dances are a very entertaining part of them, especially since they are very new interpretations of the dances. The Chinese Dance features a guy dressed as a tiger, which was very cool.

The Arabian Dance features what I think is supposed to be a Peacock, but due to being played by a human dancer, gives me more of the impression that it's a lady imprisoned in a cage, which I found pretty disturbing.

This production follows the Vainonen and Baryshnikov productions by cutting out the Sugar Plum Fairy and Cavalier, and instead giving their respective dances to Marie and the Prince. I actually prefer it this way for some reason that I can't pinpoint, but some might find that weird.

During the final dance, the Pasha causes Marie and the Prince to levitate into the air, and then fall from the sky at a fast pace, while the Prince transforms back into a Nutcracker and Marie back into a twelve-year-old. Then Marie wakes up in bed and the curtain closes. The camera zooms out from the miniature theatre to reveal Drosselmeyer, asleep, smiling.

This was a very different version from any Nutcracker I had ever seen, and feels like a more grown-up take on the story. I actually really enjoyed it despite the surreal feel of it, and I will probably by this version if I ever find it and watch it many times.

Expect to see a great up rise in posts now that I've got the difficulties solved, and come back in December where I'll probably talk more about different versions of The Nutcracker.