The Greatest Trick

Based on the hit Broadway musical, which was itself based on John Waters’ 1988 film, Hairspray is an unexpectedly delightful musical comedy set in Maryland during the pop heyday of the early 1960s. Overweight Tracy Turnblad dreams of dancing on local TV station’s pop music programme, The Corny Collins Show, and wants to audition. Her equally overweight shut-in mother discourages this, as she fears her daughter’s feelings will be hurt, but her eccentric joke-shop owner father encourages her to go for it. After learning some dance moves from black students she ends up in school detention with, Tracy succeeds in getting on the show, largely due to presenter Corny Collins’s progressive views on wanting to integrate black and white people on the programme. But icy producer Velma von Tussle wants to keep the show predominately white, with a “Negro day” every so often for Rhythm and Blues music. She also takes a dislike to Tracy whom she fears will steal the “Miss Teenage Hairspray” crown from her bitchy daughter, Amber.

This is as much an interesting look at a footnote in US civil rights history as a feel good celebration of the innocence and fun of a bygone pop era. It’s proof that one doesn’t have to make a preachy heavy drama to tackle important issues such as institutionalised racism. I was never a huge fan of the John Waters original, but this is a surprisingly entertaining musical reinvention. Leslie Dixon’s witty screenplay zips along at a tremendous pace, and director Adam Shankman choreographs the fine musical numbers with flair, even opening with a kind of West Side Story homage.

It’s become a tradition for the role of Tracy’s mother to be portrayed by a man in drag, and here John Travolta gamely does his best to disturbing and hilarious effect. He isn’t as convincing as, say, Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, but given how hard it is to pull off such a role, due credit must be given. In the lead role, Tracy’s is an absolute delight, charming and innocent, yet ultimately rising above her naivety to take part in a civil rights rally that ends in a clash with police. She also finds romance in the form of Corny Collins show regular Link (Zac Efron), an up and coming star who agrees with her views on integration but is reluctant to voice them for fear of Velma (a wonderfully nasty Michelle Pfeiffer) ruining his career.

Elsewhere, James Marsden is excellent as Corny Collins, taking the role beyond obligatory cheesy grins and imbuing the character with a hefty dose of moral fortitude. Queen Latifah exudes patient righteous indignation as Motormouth Maybelle, the presenter of “Negro Day. Taylor Parks has a small but pivotal role as her daughter Little Inez, Amanda Bynes is wonderful as Tracy’s best friend Penny, and Elijah Kelley is equally winning as the black boy she falls in love with her a cute subplot. Finally, the always brilliant Christopher Walken steals the show as Tracy’s amusingly eccentric father, providing many of the films best jokes. Speaking of jokes, some of them are a little rude, and might upset certain Christian audiences I know. They will also be annoyed by Alison Janney’s unfortunate and extremely irritating portrayal of Penny’s mother as a racist loony, Bible-bashing Christian.

But such nits aside, this is a must-see for fans of the genre, and is deserves to be seen far more than most of the dross currently clogging up multiplexes. A dead cert for cult status, see it first, before everyone rediscovers it later.

Simon Dillon, July 2007.

Near the beginning of The Simpsons Movie, Homer turns to the audience and announces they are all suckers for paying to see something that is on television all the time. Evidently creator Matt Groening has gamely decided to wear a certain amount of cynical bad faith on his sleeve, apparently questioning his own judgement in allowing his monumental television creation a cinematic outing. And he is right to question it.

The Simpsons is unarguably a television animation milestone. At once subversive, satirical, hilariously funny, yet good-natured, and always with family values at their core, the series has gradually become part of the establishment. As such, it lost a lot of its edge in later series, but still manages to be consistently entertaining. Even if one disregards the main cast, there are literally hundreds of smaller characters who all have their own fervent following amongst viewers. The series shows no sign of coming to an end given the seemingly endless story possibilities.

Unfortunately, the film is not in the same class. After a promising start, in which Homer’s usual buffoonery causes an environmental disaster that dooms Springfield, the jokes begin to fall flat. A number of potentially interesting subplots – Lisa falling in love, Bart seeing Ned Flanders as a surrogate father – go nowhere, and many beloved characters do not make an appearance. Obviously, in a programme with this many sub-characters not all were going to get screen time, but I for one wish there had been more scenes with Mr Burns. However, at least Itchy and Scratchy get an amusing opening number involving the moon and several nuclear weapons.

All the usual vocal talents are present and correct (Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Harry Shearer, Hank Azaria, et al), plus there are a few amusing cameos, including rock band Green Day and Tom Hanks. The animation is a bit more detailed and cinematic, as one would expect, with director David Silverman revelling in its “2-D” glory. Yet this still feels like an extended average episode, and therefore unsustainable over 90 minutes.

Politically, the film appears to come down on the Al Gore side of the fence with regard to environmental issues, and as such is a little on the preachy side (ironically, during a crowd scene, certain characters rail against preachy environmentalism). Morally, its celebration of family values can hardly be knocked, but it’s been done so much more entertainingly in the television series. The humour is a little ruder than usual, with a couple of gags Groening couldn’t get away with on television, but its still feels tame compared to the cutting-edge humour of the early series.

There is nothing I can say that will put off Simpsons completists from seeing this. However, if you are new to The Simpsons might I suggest checking out some of the brilliant earlier TV episodes instead, such as There’s no disgrace like home, Life in the Fast Lane, Itchy and Scratchy and Marge, And Maggie Makes Three, and my all time favourite story, the brilliant two-part Who shot Mr Burns. These sublime examples are a far better introduction to what some consider the greatest television series of all time than this lacklustre picture.

Simon Dillon, July 2007.

Before I get to the film, I ought to point out from the beginning that those Christians expecting a scathing denouncement of Harry Potter will be disappointed, as will those who expect me to dismiss JK Rowling’s popular novels as harmless fun. There has been a great deal of hysteria, on both sides of this argument, and I will attempt to expound what I believe to be a common sense position, based on my own Christian world view.

The Order of the Phoenix novel was less a fantasy and more a story about what it’s like to be fifteen. It is the longest and least interesting of the books, yet ironically the shortest and best of the films. Many plot items have been streamlined or removed to great effect, and for the first time, the filmmakers have not been afraid to reinvent for the screen where necessary. The previous four films, although they got better with each installment, were an infuriatingly mixed bag and not a patch on the source material. This time however, director David Yates has finally got the adaptation almost spot-on. Because Phoenix has a relatively slender plot, the film is able indulge in cinematic flourishes and character moments come to the fore. Credit for this must also go to screenwriter Michael Goldenberg.

For those who haven’t read the book, Harry has to contend with skepticism from much of the wizarding world when the Ministry of Magic tries to suppress the truth about evil Lord Voldemort’s return. To achieve this they send the monumentally nasty Dolores Umbridge as a teacher to Hogwarts, who makes life hell for pupils and teachers alike. Besides Umbridge, Harry has to contend with strange visions of Voldemort trying to steal something vitally important from the Ministry of Magic. Worse, his raging hormones cause him to be rather hot tempered, and even worse, he develops a painful crush on Cho Chang, a girl whose previous boyfriend Cedric Diggory was murdered by Voldemort at the finale of the previous installment. Worst of all, headmaster Albus Dumbledore, one person who believed Harry’s stories about Voldemort, for some reason keeps avoiding him.

Performances from the cast have gradually improved, and here for the first time there is almost a complete absence of “school play” moments. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint all contribute solidly as Harry, Hermione and Ron respectively. I still don’t think Michael Gambon was the best choice to play Dumbledore, but he makes a decent fist of it. Katie Leung is passable as Cho, and newcomer Evanna Lynch does a great job as Luna Lovegood. Gary Oldman’s Sirius Black also has a few good moments that up the emotional ante. Unfortunately, Alan Rickman’s Snape, my favourite character, still doesn’t get enough screen time, and a vital moment from the book where something of his past is revealed is annoyingly skimmed over.

Imelda Staunton’s Dolores Umbridge is an absolutely splendid villain, every bit as snootily evil as she was in the book, and incidentally bearing more than a passing resemblance to a New Labour bureaucrat. Elsewhere Jason Isaacs and Helena Bonham Carter are terrific as two of Voldemort’s particularly nasty followers. As Voldemort, Ralph Fiennes is suitably odious, though I still think it would have been better if the filmmakers had done a motion capture job, like with Gollum in The Lord of the Rings.

Needless to say, production design, special effects, cinematography, and sound are all terrific. Nicholas Hooper’s music is appropriately dark, but not a patch on John Williams’ scores for the first and third films. David Yates directs with flair, particularly during the opening Dementor attack and the spectacular duels in the ministry of Magic. All in all, although this still doesn’t quite match the quality of the book, it is the easily the best Potter film to date.

So what of my current position on the Harry Potter phenomenon from a Christian perspective? (I say current, because next week the final book is unveiled, and upon reading it my position may or may not drastically change once I am able to deliver a verdict upon the entire franchise).

Purely as stories, I have no great problems with what JK Rowling has written so far. For the most part, they are an ingenious mixture of school story, detective fiction, and surrealistic fairy tale. Good and evil are clearly defined, and positive values such as loyalty, courage and love are celebrated and encouraged. They are gripping, well-written, and I refuse to subscribe to the snobby “it’s-popular-therefore-its-rubbish” backlash.

Regarding occult concerns, the so-called witchcraft in Harry Potter bears virtually no resemblance to reality. The minute the Hogwarts Express leaves platform nine and three-quarters at Kings Cross, it is perfectly clear the reader is stepping into a fantasy world a la Alice in Wonderland, down the rabbit hole so to speak. Whilst it is true that JK Rowling has researched mythology and folklore, that in itself is not a reason to immediately condemn the stories, given that Christian authors CS Lewis and Tolkien also made extensive mythical references in their works. Furthermore, anyone with a knowledge of classical languages will swiftly realise the spells in her books are actually cod-Latin jokes. Also, in spite of what many Christian websites claim, I do not believe it is true to say that JK Rowling is a witch, or that she is intentionally trying to convert children to paganism.

However, what I do find of concern is the slew of Harry Potter related media and the general frenzy that surrounds the franchise. For example the internet has dozens of fan websites and chat rooms aimed at children which contain links to genuinely occult material. It is also not outside the realm of possibility that having read a Harry Potter book, a child with the appropriate temperament will want to look into real witchcraft, and this of course is the great danger that it would be foolish to disregard when wondering whether or not ones children should read the books or view the films.

Obviously, parents will know their own children best, and I certainly don’t advocate a “one size fits all” answer with regard to Harry Potter. Some parents shouldn’t allow access full stop. Some should make sure they don’t deliberately introduce their children to the franchise. However, in some cases I suspect refusing to let ones children read Harry Potter when they really want to is only going to increase their curiosity for this “forbidden fruit”, especially with older children and teenagers. Circular conversations such as “Why can’t I read Harry Potter/Because its wrong/But why?” are unhelpful, and will just cause frustration. In such cases, it is might be better to read and discuss it with them, explaining that the witchcraft in these stories is a plot device which bears no resemblance to the real life witchcraft that must be avoided at all costs. This concession could well provoke useful discussion, and help children to understand the concerns that their parents have.

There are books aimed at children that ought to be of far more concern to Christians, such as Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials saga (note: watch this space for a no-doubt lengthy article when the film version is released this Christmas). Harry Potter could certainly prove a stumbling block to some children if not guided through with the necessary parental wisdom, but that is something far more likely to catch children of non-Christian, rather than Christian parents. Compared to the likes of Pullman’s artistically brilliant but spiritually abhorrent magnum opus, the problems of Harry Potter are small fry. Finally, I must again emphasise that this opinion is based on Potter books one to six, having not yet read the finale.

If I’m absolutely honest, I still cannot pinpoint anything horrendously objectionable in the Harry Potter stories themselves (although I maintain that they are far too scary for younger children). Yet I remain uneasy about endorsing them. If there are children investigating genuine witchcraft having had their interest piqued by these books or films, then that cannot be a good thing. I have heard rumours of one or two cases where this has occurred, though to be fair, the claims are not backed up with actual evidence. Therefore, despite the undoubted entertainment merits of this hugely popular franchise, I advise parents to pray carefully if they are considering taking their children to see this. If in doubt, take them to see Spider-Man 3 instead, for anything that does not come from faith is sin (Romans chapter 14). It is also worth heeding the warning of Mark chapter 9: “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.” If there is truth to the assertion that JK Rowling has caused children to stumble, then I certainly wouldn’t like to be her on the day of Judgement, nor would I like to join her by endorsing Harry Potter without further investigation or having read the final book – hence my recommendation of extreme caution.

Simon Dillon, July 2007.

Back in 1988, before Bruce Willis was a household name, he landed the starring role in Die Hard, which went on to become a much loved and much imitated action classic. It redefined the genre with its wisecracking (if foul-mouthed) hero John McClane, as he played cat and mouse in a skyscraper with terrorist thieves, all in bare feet, for over two hugely suspenseful action-packed hours. Yet amid the mayhem and spectacular stunts, there was a sense of plausibility and suspension of disbelief that carried the film. McClane was clearly not Arnold Schwarzenegger, and one truly had the impression that he could go under any minute, which kept the audience on the edge of their seats.

Inevitable sequels followed in the shape of Die Hard 2: Die Harder, Die Hard with a Vengeance, and now twelve years on from the last instalment, Die Hard 4.0 (or its even sillier title Live Free or Die Hard in the US). And with each sequel the stunts have got more ludicrous, McClane has become more indomitable, and the suspense has gradually evaporated. Die Hard 4.0 is a cynical throwback to the 80’s action movie era combined with a typically creepy modern post 9/11 terrorist plot. Like oil and water, they don’t mix.

That’s not to say Die Hard 4.0 isn’t without its pleasures. The ludicrous plot is enjoyable nonsense about a disgruntled, psychotic ex-Pentagon employee who is fed up that no-one in the intelligence agencies listened to his apocalyptic warnings about terrorism, He decides to teach the country a lesson by hacking into and messing with, well, just about everything: weapons systems, satellites, power grids, phone networks, television and so on. Then, later on, like all good Die Hard villains, he just wants to rob the bank.

Needless to say, McClane manages to get dragged into this mess, along with computer nerd hacker Matt Farrell. Together they use the crisis as an excuse to blow up as many things as possible. These obligatory spectacular stunts, staged with flair by director Len Wiseman, include taking a helicopter out with a speeding car, a hilarious scene with a car in a lift shaft, and a monumentally daft moment involving a fighter plane, a freeway, and a truck.

Bruce Willis is as likeable as ever in the lead, and Justin Long’s Farrell is a good value sidekick. Unfortunately, the villains are fairly unremarkable. Timothy Olyphant’s mastermind Thomas Gabriel is a pale shadow of Alan Rickman’s memorably frightening original terrorist leader, and Maggie Q’s Mai Lihn is just plain silly. On the plus side, there is an amusing Kevin Smith cameo, plus some fun references to the original film, such as an FBI agent who is called agent Johnson.

Yet despite this, the feeling of déjà vu is unavoidable. The original Die Hard remains a classic, but since then action cinema has moved on. The ante has been upped by the Jason Bourne films, The Matrix, and others. Even James Bond largely dispensed with wisecracks in the excellent Casino Royale, and here the quality of McClane’s quips fails to match their hilarious counterparts in the original film. And it isn’t just cinema that has made the Die Hard franchise seem old-fashioned. Nerve shredding television thrillers like 24 with its hairpin twists and post 9/11 sophistication have created a new breed of action hero, making John McClane seem comparatively tame and predictable.

In short, this is enjoyably brainless fare, but don’t expect to remember anything about it afterwards.

Simon Dillon, July 2007.