Skip to main content

Hey, my friend smells amazing!

Luca
(2021)

(SPOILERS) Pixar’s first gay movie? Not according to director Enrico Cassarosa (“This was really never in our plans. This was really about their friendship in that kind of pre-puberty world”). Perhaps it should have been, as that might have been an excuse – any excuse is worth a shot at this point – for Luca being so insipid and bereft of spark. You know, the way Soul could at least claim it was about something deep and meaningful as a defence for being entirely lacking as a distinctive and creatively engaging story in its own right.

Cassaro’s only previous writing credit – and directing, for that matter – is on 2011 short La Luna. But in Pixar’s quest to be as culturally credible as possible, a tale set in an Italian port probably seemed as ready cachet as any, if a little on the diluted side after Coco (you can easily imagine Pixar’s honchos scouring the office for some, any, cultural heritage they can score points with). His idea of a couple of sea monsters – a “metaphor for feeling different”, mmm-hmmm – passing as human for the summer amid a blossoming friendship has drawn comparisons to Call Me By Your Name. Fortunately, though, this is not a tale of lust and lack of caution between a grown man and a tween, but rather a fairly straightforward story of best friends, one that inevitably lends itself to other readings under the auspices of Disney’s current “go woke for broke” environment.

As such, even with one’s progressive faculties straining at the leash, Luca (Jacob Tremblay) and Alberto (Jack Dylan Grazer) being budding buddies doesn’t quite work as a gay metaphor. Yes, local bully Visconti (Saverio Raimondo) bears all the characteristics of prejudiced persecutor, suggesting there’s “Something fishy about you two”. And when he discovers just what that is, affirming “Everyone is horrified and disgusted by you, because you are monsters”, the allusion is only underlined (further still, of the third act competition: “They can’t be the winners. They aren’t even people”). So Luca becomes about being who you are, which entails outing oneself at a crucial moment and thus gaining acceptance and support for said outing; Luca and Alberto, as gillmen, are very conveniently able to pass as human when out of water, not through some transhumanist miracle but a simple common-or-ocean physiological change. Which might suggest they’re bi. After all, Luca’s parents happily come out at the end too, so there are a number of hoops to reshape in order to make the metaphor consistent. Although, admittedly, the town’s couple of all-the-while resident old lesbians seem entirely credible.

This discussion of thematic subtext is at least something, suggesting Luca is much more fulfilling and resonant than it actually is, be that as an essay on tolerance and inclusivity or simply a fun family adventure. Even the sub-par Onward largely succeeded in the latter capacity, but Luca is mostly a bit of a snooze. And a plod. The movie starts out with the usual Pixar schtick – let’s make our “new” environment as identical to the human world as possible, but in this case fishy – so we’re beset by standard tropes of concerned/overbearing parents and transposed chores (Luca, voiced by Jacob Tremblay, herds goatfish). And interesting the ocean isn’t that polluted, such that human detritus is something to be marvelled at rather than revolted by. Greta must be seething.

When Luca first meets Alberto, an inordinate amount of – gay, presumably – time is spent on their getting to know each other, before the plot appears to decide it’s going to be about them getting their very own prized Vespa (I know, right?) Even beyond the characteristically perverse Pixar wish to bask in human innovations – as opposed to celebrating the wonders of nature, such as, say, the sea; probably not that surprising given the natural world is illusory in their virtual, pixelated oeuvre – it’s a desperately weak, unchallenging motivation.

It also runs in tandem with Luca discovering the joys of the human paradigm, such that he wants to go to school and learn all the lies bundled in with our freemasonic designation of the universe (a whole scene is taken up with such Neil deGrasse Tyson-esque indoctrination). Accompanying this are some intensely annoying, repetitive flights-of-fantasy dream sequences. It’s illustrative that a medium traditionally about indulging flights of fantasy is now reduced to the mundanity of its characters being forced to indulge them.

Cassaro cites Fellini as an influence (not a positive in my book) along with Aardman (I can see that in the character designs, but the last thing you want to imitate when it comes to Aardman is their humans). In the case of the former, I might charitably suggest that explains the dream fixation. It doesn’t excuse it, however. Emma Berman voices hyperactive redhead Giulia, seemingly there to have Luca stray from the unstraight and narrow, or simply to promote the joys of the human experience. Naturally, this means jealousy between the boys, patching things up and an affirmation of undying love (well, affection).

Also to be heard in Luca are Maya Rudolph (Luca’s mother, attempting to mollycoddle her not-gay son and keep him from human depravations). And a mercifully underused Sacha Baron Cohen as Luca’s uncle. Even more than Soul, Pixar’s very lucky the plandemic was here to gauze over what would surely have been a resounding lack of box office for this tepid affair. Their next undertaking finds Chinese-Canadian director Domee Shi (Bao) telling of a girl who turns into a giant red panda: Turning Red. Is that a political reference in the title? Surely that would be grossly insensitive. And bad for box office.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.