in defense of speed racer

[davemerrill]

Went 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.

Comments

[dave-iii.livejournal.com]

What, is "Subtle" the new "Cowbell"? As in, "needs more..."? I still haven't seen it, but anyone who thinks a movie about a guy who is a professional racer with a gadget-filled car on a course suspended three stories up, his competitors flipping off and exploding, is a movie that lacks subtlety is a person who flat missed the train to Clue-ville.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

As an adaptation, the film was quite authentic; the dialog was stilted, the acting was crap (it's strange to see John Goodman as the BEST SERIOUS actor in an ensemble) and the plot combined total lack of credibility with Iowa's annual output of corn.

It wouldn't have been the least bit enjoyable otherwise.

That said, though... they really COULD have turned down the CGI a notch or ten. ESPECIALLY the epilepsy-inducing racetrack. Was that intended to be an additional driving hazard- flashing lights that dazzle the driver and make it impossible to tell the driving surface from anything else? It was something that wasn't in the cartoon that I could recall- and that did NOT make it better, either as a movie or as a faithful adaptation.

[(Anonymous)]

Speed Racer was a dream come true. Like the Yamato film, I went in with the opinion that they could change plenty of things, but there were two things they HAD to get right: the music and the design. And as with Yamato, both were 100% successful. I like Speed Racer MORE every time I watch it. If you don't like it, it simply wasn't made for you. Move along and let the rest of us enjoy it.

-Tim Eldred

[davemerrill.livejournal.com]

I liked it more on the second viewing, myself.

[voiceofisaac.livejournal.com]

I loved the movie, and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. I think people were expecting the Wachowski Brothers to do a Dark Matrix-y Deconstruction of SR and were upset when they got the live-action cartoon that it was clearly meant to be. But the critics had decided that the Wachowskis only do dark sci-fi, so if this wasn't dark sci-fi, then it wasn't a good Wachowski film. Bleah on them.

I own a copy of this movie, and I still enjoy watching it once in awhile, just for mind-relaxing brain candy fun.

[tochiro998.livejournal.com]

I still think the only real problem the film had was the Hot Wheels track race courses. The cross-country race was fine but those tracks...

See, I could NEVER get a sense of 'place' with them, no sense of who was ahead, how far to go, etc.

Also, the other cars needed to be a bit more distinct. And only the Car Acrobat Team should have gimmicked cars! Because they're cheaters!

Seriously, the whole 'green stage' thing worked OK for the most part but there were a couple of cases of 'Spy Kids' overkill, too much layering and you could tell the actors weren't quite meshed with it, not enough references for them to work with.

I too am glad, kinda, that there's no more in the works. I could see so much cost-cutting, changing out cast, other crap like that. Blarg. I thought the cast was just about perfect.

[sobieniak.livejournal.com]

I would say one was enough, and I'm probably in the same ballpark as you on this film.

[kikaiju.livejournal.com]

It's too bad everything is judged on how many tickets it sells or how big the ratings are, or how much of some tie-in gets moved.

Very little is made just for fun any more, or just because somebody thought it might be worth a shot.

Instead it's all about numbers and cash and more of both, please.

[tochiro998.livejournal.com]

well, we have to be fair, this crap costs major jack and there needs to be a return on that investment. I mean, there's horrid, horrid movies being cranked out for the SciFi... sorry, SyFy channel that cost like a buck fiddynine and yeah, Sharktopus did have some humor value but man, can't anyone come up with a modern exploitation film that actually has some fun and snap and smarts to it?

(Riverworld. OM f'ing God Riverworld. I enjoy Farmer and the books were interesting but holy cats did this 'film' stink up the place. WHY? I guess they feared that opening shot of billions of bald, totally hairless and utterly naked people...)

No. They can't.

I mean, Speed Racer cost a lot of money. It *shouldn't* have. Thing should have been like 2 Mil, tops, to make. But Hollywood won't take you seriously if your movie doesn't budget out at $100 Mil or better. Yikes.

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

I keep having to defend this flick to people who never saw it... I think that's the film's only problem. It's a film with no audience outside of the ultra-niche: modern anime fans aren't going to see it, the average moviegoer won't see it, just the select crowd willing to give a chance to a remake of a foreign cartoon from their youth.

Me, I loved it, especially John Goodman who stole the film. I even appreciated the kid and chimp, since they always irritated the fuck outta me as a kid too...

Next summer: the live action Spartacus and the Sun Beneath the Sea!