![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
in defense of speed racer
Apr. 16th, 2011 12:11 pmWent down to the Underground last night to see SPEED RACER as part of their "Defending the Indefensible" series in which duelling critics explain why they love or hate a movie, and then the theater shows the movie, and then the critics come back to explain why they still love or hate it.
The anti-SPEED critic felt that the film lacked subtlety. You know, there's a cinema where the filmmaker leaves room for the audience to think, to breathe, and then there is cinema that is just throwing everything at the viewer in a blatant attempt to create a condition known as 'entertainment'. Apparently this critic felt that this film, titled "Speed Racer", based on a 1967 television cartoon about a guy with a super racing car solving world problems through auto racing, was just not subtle enough.
And there was a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about the gee-whiz technological accomplishments the film pioneered, the digital environments, the artificiality of the entire production. The pro-SPEED critic came out in a homemade Speed Racer outfit and defended the film's effects work, its cutting, its audacious nothing-else-like-it look, the post-modern interpretation of the film as a commentary on film itself (the race track is like a film loop, see?).
But the unasked question was, does the film succeed in what it sets out to do - to become a feature film about Speed Racer? Well, as somebody who grew up watching the show, this is the only thing to ask about this film. Forget grosses, forget critical reception, forget the hypercolored superflat look of the film that owes as much to Murakami as it does to cinema theory, forget budget - does it work as "Speed Racer"? The answer is "yes". The film is hands down the most faithful, most entertaining, most fun to watch movie ever based on a Japanese cartoon. The family dynamic, the crazy villains, the super cars, the impossible races, the 1966-meets-2001 visual design, it's all there. It is wrapped in a package that not only acknowledges its cartoon roots, but embraces that artificiality wholeheartedly and wallows in creating the impossible on the movie screen in just about every scene.
That's not to say the film doesn't have problems, chiefly that it is two hours and fifteen minutes long. You could easily trim it down to under two hours and not lose any of the amazing auto races. The dialog is full of unexplained talk about "T-180s", and much of it is unclear because the audience is laughing when Christina Ricci asks, "Was that a NINJA??"
In a way I'm glad this film tanked at the box office. I like the movie but one is enough; an entire series of these films would indeed be too much. You should only go to the hyper-real well once. Anyway, none of the producers were hurting for money. More vanity projects like this, please.
The anti-SPEED critic felt that the film lacked subtlety. You know, there's a cinema where the filmmaker leaves room for the audience to think, to breathe, and then there is cinema that is just throwing everything at the viewer in a blatant attempt to create a condition known as 'entertainment'. Apparently this critic felt that this film, titled "Speed Racer", based on a 1967 television cartoon about a guy with a super racing car solving world problems through auto racing, was just not subtle enough.
And there was a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about the gee-whiz technological accomplishments the film pioneered, the digital environments, the artificiality of the entire production. The pro-SPEED critic came out in a homemade Speed Racer outfit and defended the film's effects work, its cutting, its audacious nothing-else-like-it look, the post-modern interpretation of the film as a commentary on film itself (the race track is like a film loop, see?).
But the unasked question was, does the film succeed in what it sets out to do - to become a feature film about Speed Racer? Well, as somebody who grew up watching the show, this is the only thing to ask about this film. Forget grosses, forget critical reception, forget the hypercolored superflat look of the film that owes as much to Murakami as it does to cinema theory, forget budget - does it work as "Speed Racer"? The answer is "yes". The film is hands down the most faithful, most entertaining, most fun to watch movie ever based on a Japanese cartoon. The family dynamic, the crazy villains, the super cars, the impossible races, the 1966-meets-2001 visual design, it's all there. It is wrapped in a package that not only acknowledges its cartoon roots, but embraces that artificiality wholeheartedly and wallows in creating the impossible on the movie screen in just about every scene.
That's not to say the film doesn't have problems, chiefly that it is two hours and fifteen minutes long. You could easily trim it down to under two hours and not lose any of the amazing auto races. The dialog is full of unexplained talk about "T-180s", and much of it is unclear because the audience is laughing when Christina Ricci asks, "Was that a NINJA??"
In a way I'm glad this film tanked at the box office. I like the movie but one is enough; an entire series of these films would indeed be too much. You should only go to the hyper-real well once. Anyway, none of the producers were hurting for money. More vanity projects like this, please.
