Skip to main content

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman
(2014)

Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.


I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sherman derives. I haven’t even seen the classic movie version starring Robert De Niro as Fearless Leader (and hasn’t Bob just gone from strength to strength in the 15 years since?) As such, I’m unable to avow that that the spirit of the original has been desecrated and replaced with an over-explained set-up and generic CG animation (well, I can testify to the latter, but it has been ever thus of late). But the oddball premise is an appealing one; a genius dog with an adopted seven-year-old son (it might have been even odder if Sherman had been Peabody’s biological offspring; the picture gets quite close to the knuckle on several occasions) is so fastidious about his education that he takes Sherman for regular jaunts through history in a time machine of his own design.


Making a feature requires baggage that would be unnecessary in a short; there needs to be an arc of some kind, even if it’s as glib as that of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (to which this owes a debt; or maybe Bill and Ted owe the original show a debt). As such, Peabody spends a little too much time establishing the conflict that drives the plot; Sherman’s bullying classmate Penny Peterson gets Sherman into trouble at school, so endangering Peabody’s custody. This involves a slightly laboured subplot about Sherman being ashamed of his father being a dog (although this pays off with an “I’m Spartacus” finale).


On the other hand, the custody element incorporates a readily identifiable subtext concerning same sex parenting. There can be little doubt this was intentional, although it has attracted relatively little attention. Certainly, not compared to the much-discussed lesbian anthem in Frozen (of course, Frozen was a zeitgeist-capturing picture; Peabody has barely been noticed). Child Protective Services’ Mrs Grunion (Allison Janney) stands for strict intolerance of anything that deviates from perceived societal norms (“In my opinion a dog can never be a suitable parent to a boy”) and proceeds to impugn Peabody’s parenting skills at every opportunity. It’s no great leap to see the bullying of Sherman bullying (“Beg like a dog”) as arising from having gay parents. One might even see Peabody’s emotional reticence towards Sherman (“I have a deep regard for you as well, Sherman”; it’s only at the end that he can say “I love you”) resulting from concerns over the judgements of those around him.


But it’s the anarchic energy, hard to come by in big screen animations, that sets Peabody apart. It reminds me a little in tone of one Disney’s few forays into the more postmodern Warner Bros style, the underappreciated The Emperor’s New Groove (it may be no coincidence that both share the inimitable vocal talents of Patrick Wharburton). As much as I think the commentary mentioned above is by design, it’s undercut by such batty logic as the custody judgement “Very well then, if a boy can adopt a dog, I see no reason why a dog cannot adopt a boy”. Likewise, this a family movie discussing daddy issues that cheerfully invokes the spectre of Oedipus (“Let’s just say you do not want to be at his house over the holidays, it’s awkward”).


As is usual for DreamWorks, there’s an abundance of mild bodily function and naughty bits jokes. The most inventive of these involves Greek soldiers plopping out of the tail of the Trojan horse in an excretory manner. There are also gags that sail close to the wind; during the climax, where figures form history are fetching up in present day New York (very Bill and Ted, complete with some very obvious one-liners; “Hey, Einstein! It’s a red light!”), Washington and Lincoln offer Peabody a presidential pardon. At which Bill Clinton appears and admits, “I’ve done worse”. The ructions of the climax result from a time paradox, in which two Shermans and two Peabodys exist at the same time and in approximate space. This leads to the Peabody exclaiming, “Sherman, I’ve got to get you out of here before you touch yourself!”). Unsurprisingly, the Grunion exclaims “What?!”, which was exactly my reaction.


Peabody: He is Ay.
Sherman: He is you?
Ay: I am Ay. The grand vizier.
Peabody: That’s his name.

Justice is not served on the Grunion, who seems to be rather let off the hook when Wharburton’s Agamemnon makes off with her to ancient Greece (“The Grunion is mine!”) Given Agamemnon’s fate, this may be commentary in itself. There are four main ports of call in the past, all of which deliver a breathless stream of both obvious and clever verbal and visual gags (and a succession of bad Peabody puns, to which Sherman’s response is “I don’t get it”). The first of these is revolutionary France (“Marie Antoinette sure likes cake, Mr Sherman”), followed by a sojourn in Ancient Egypt (“Oy, again with the plagues. Why did I ever move to Egypt?”) This might have the best in a rum lot of puns (“They get married too young in Egypt.. Or perhaps I’m just some old Giza”).


Leonardo da Vinci: The sunshine! The pasta! All the things that make Italy such a popular tourist destination.

Then there’s a visit to Leonardo da Vinci, which appears to have been at least partly inspired by Hudson Hawk (encouraging the Mona Lisa to smile, making use of da Vinci’s flying machine). It’s here that mean Penny is allowed redemptive qualities, with the focus shifting to Peabody needing to slacken Sherman’s leash and granting him a modicum of independent thought. The best recurring joke concerns da Vinci’s robot child (“You ever see that child he made? So creepy”) a freaky Pinocchio affair that resurfaces at the climax (“Papa! Momma!”)


Agamemnon: Smell my victory. Smell it!

The trip to Troy features a sublime Trojan horse within a Trojan horse gag (“I did not see that coming”) and the apparent demise of Peabody. The arch approach to narrative reaches its zenith when Peabody resurfaces, having fashioned a makeshift WABAC (the time machine) from “Bones, stones and yak fat”.


Anchoring all this is a tremendous vocal performance from Ty Burrell as Peabody. Robert Downey Jr was originally attached, but I can’t imagine he would have been as winning. Burrell was by far the best thing in Muppets Most Wanted and he ensures Peabody is highly memorable. Peabody’s unflappable genius and endless skillsets present that rare character who hasn’t been custom fitted to a demographic. His many talents include attempting to entertain Penny’s parents, voiced by Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann, with his boundless musical talents; hypnotising them with a trick he learned “from a swami at the Begawan Giri in Ubud Bali”; winning Penny’s dad over with his chiropractic skills). He laso has a nice line in assured pronouncements (“Mandarin Chinese should be learned as it’s the language of the future”).


The show-stopping conclusion lacks the earlier inventiveness, but it’s to be expected of current "bigger is always better" approach to finales. Rob Minkoff, who nursed the project for more than a decade and seems to have a thing for anthropomorphic cross-species familial relationships (Stuart Little), generally satisfies the competing demands of story and studio (he had the Bullwinkle estate breathing over his shoulder). There are four credited writers, and it’s only occasionally that the bombardment of elements becomes a little too frenetic. He serves up the farce particularly well, as Peabody attempts to keep multiple personas and disappearing daughters from his dinner guests.


Unfortunately, as it means DreamWorks will be further encouraged to play it safe, Mr. Peabody and Sherman was a financial disappointment. It didn’t do anything like the box office the knuckle dragging The Croods did the same time the year before, and the studio has taken a write-down (as well as laying off staff). Did audiences just not want anything too taxing or off-the-wall? Or was it too different in terms of character types? Peabody made less than the also experimental (but not experimental enough) Rise of the Guardians and generic turkey Turbo.  It looks as if the inevitable The Croods 2 and Kung Fu Panda 3 will be the sad and desperate lifelines facing the studio going forward.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.