Skip to main content

Oh, the Who-manity!

How the Grinch Stole Christmas
(2000)

(SPOILERS) Or How Little Ronnie Howard Committed a Celluloid Atrocity. Away from the inescapable horror of witnessing it on the big screen, How the Grinch Stole Christmas isn’t quite as relentlessly nightmarish, but it remains a hideous monstrosity of a production on almost every level, starting with the direction and then moving on to performances, costumes, music, prosthetics and art direction. The oddest thing about it is how it manages to be simultaneously grotesque and saccharine, but in neither regard with anything approaching flair or sincerity.

The blame surely rests with Howard, the most workmanlike of Hollywood name directors and lacking a truly imaginative bone in his body. Romantic fantasy – Splash, Cocoon – he can just about handle, but ask him to steer a course requiring a degree of creative acumen – this, Willow, the Dan Browns – and he falls flat on his face. His response to the demands of a live-action version of Dr Seuss’ most famous work, give or take a cat in a hat, is to create a queasy, plasticised Whoville, cramped and claustrophobic and decorated with Dutch angles, even speeding up sequences, while ensuring its residents resemble a cheese melt phantasmagoria. Except for “adorable” Cindy Lou (Taylor Momsen, now a rock chick), requiring a line about how she “hasn’t even grown into her nose yet” to enable her to remain a normal looking moppet.

Somehow, Seuss’ seventy-page picture book and the thirty-minute cartoon version have been engorged into a listless, enfeebled, dramatically sterile 105-minute movie, with swathes of dead-air filler regarding the Whoville inhabitants’ emphasis on the mercenary rather than the true meaning of Christmas, and little Cindy Lou appealing to their better natures. And the Grinch’s too, his having been retconned as an abandoned What (what?) who resents them the town’s inhabitants for his childhood mistreatment (Hollywood Backstory 101).

All of which is a bit rich coming from a movie expressly designed to make megabucks, not least through the merchandising, for both Universal and the keenly grasping Audrey Geisel and her agents. As the Grinch laments at one point, “The avarice never ends!” It’s okay, though, as Geisel was principled about content, and had script veto, even if quality itself was moot; her say-so didn’t prevent such elements as key parties slipping through and the Grinch landing in Christina Baranski’s cleavage.

Jim Carrey is as good casting as anyone as the Grinch, but the problem is that, as per the saggy, unfocussed film generally, he’s allowed a free hand to riff endlessly – probably the most he has in a movie outside of Ace Ventura – and the results are more frequently about frenetic gesticulating and mugging than eliciting genuine laughs. There’s a touch of WC Fields in there at times, and Carrey’s elasticity, accompanied by decent – but nevertheless emphasising that live-action wasn’t the way to go – effects from Rick Baker, serves the overall effect, but it’s all rather strained and exhausting.

Inevitably, there’s a synchronising at times of the Grinch’s disdain and the viewer’s distress, particularly when the Grinch is made to suffer a series of indignities when enthroned as “Holiday Cheermeister”, in the course of which he wins a sack race against Who tots to the Chariots of Fire theme. And when posing as Santa, and Cindy Lou asks plaintively, “Santa, what’s Christmas really about?” the Grinch responds instinctively “Vengeance!” before rephrasing.

With the title character’s redemption on the table, a worse villain needs to be established in the form of Jeffrey Tambor’s mayor; Tambor gets a few good lines, but the prosthetics, in tandem with the screenplay from Jeffrey Price and Peter S Seaman (more in Wild Wild West than on Who Framed Roger Rabbit form) kill most of his enthusiasm (various members of the Howard clan also make up Whoville numbers).

Anthony Hopkins provides a touch of clashing class as the narrator (a good year for him pocketing lucrative wads for very little effort, with this and Mission: Impossible II). Ironically, the best part of How the Grinch Stole Christmas by far doesn’t involve prosthetics or the sick-making set. Max the dog is an absolute star, be it holding a Christmas party while the Grinch is away or being forced to pull the sleigh of stolen presents up the Grinch’s mountain. Of course, Max would now be CGI (see Call of the Wild), and so the entire marvel of the performing pooch would be lost.

Has How the Grinch become a Christmas favourite? It’s a fixture of schedules, but then, so is Santa Clause: The Movie. With a TV version – which did become a favourite – and a recent Illumination CG take, its deserved status as an unbecoming desecration of a classic children’s text may yet cement itself. For now, it continues by default to garner more respect than the live-action The Cat in the Hat of a few years later. My recommendation for a decent movie Seuss: Horton Hears a Who.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.