MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Ranting and Raving

For me, Mulan is the best film of the summer, so far. You may be asking yourself, why would a hardass like this Poland guy be getting sucked in by a Disney cartoon? Well, here is one secret. I’m not such a hardass. I love movies just like the rest of you. And a good story well told is rare enough. But one with a moral that it actually stays focused on and delivers on is rare, indeed. Hey, I enjoy seeing stuff blown up as much as the next guy (or gal). But the great moments in film are the ones that reach somewhere that isn’t rational. Even in an action movie like Die Hard, the great moments weren’t the explosions, but the real moments of pain and triumph that made the original great. Running through glass. Reginald VelJohnson‘s Al Powell — a Twinkie-gorger-turned-hero. And Hans Gruber’s face as he falls to his death.
But I digress.
I didn’t expect all that much from Mulan, but I got a surprise around every corner of the film. The film starts with a bang, focusing on the peril, not the hero. And that peril is a cultural clash, not just villain vs. hero or heroine. Of course, the central villain, Shan-Yu, is the strongest by Disney since Scar in The Lion King. His desires are simple, clear and unshakable. And he clearly has the power to deliver. If I have any complaint, it is that Shan-Yu and the other Huns borrow a little too liberally from Warner Bros. recent dark “Batman”/”Superman” television work. There are other WB echoes in the film. Mulan’s grandmother, for instance, who is actually voiced by WB regular, the great June Foray. And The Matchmaker (her character name) is a dead ringer for a Chuck Jones character, especially when she has a false mustache. But I’m willing to forgive these lapses. Balancing them is a sequence (during the song “A Girl Worth Fighting For”) that is animated in a way you’ve never seen in this country before that is quite beautiful.
As we go from the opening confrontation to meet Mulan, the unique style of the film continues to surprise. Mulan’s horse, Khan, is extraordinarily beautiful and sharp. And Mulan’s dog, Little Brother, is cute, but made up of all soft lines. Some may feel the design varies too much. But for me, the combinations of Chinese art, Disney history and other influences mesh perfectly. Balance is the central theme of Chinese spiritual culture. (Not political culture.) And Mulan walked the tightrope, occasionally leaning to a side, but never falling off through its 98-minute running time.
The film respects Chinese culture (pre-Mao and pre-Tienamen Square), but doesn’t get so lost in honoring it that it loses its sense of humor. Eddie Murphy‘s Mushu character adds to the film, but never tries to steal it. (In fact, I’m pretty sure they cut his song. There’s an R&B music cue when he introduces himself to Mulan that mysteriously fades. Good choice. It would have been a tone changer.) The other animal sidekick (a cricket named Cri-Kee) are always around, but never too cute or have to force their way into a scene. The three human sidekicks (Six sidekicks mean no waiting. And no movie stealing.) are also balanced. And no matter how broad they get, they always keep their eye on the central theme. Honor. (One of the great ironies of the film is that the two most macho characters in the film are voiced by gay men. There’s some balance for you. Don’t tell the Christian Coalition or there will be picketing.)
The music is somewhat unmemorable. Absolutely. But it fits. For me, that was a sign of sure-footed smarts. None of that sense of reaching out for the hit single. The music moved the story. Which brings up my favorite thing about this film. The silence. Mulan let the visuals tell the story. There are at least three long sequences of montage in Mulan that are accompanied by music or a song only. In the soldier-training sequence, the animators didn’t force the characters to sync with the song, “Be a Man.” The visual remained the first priority. And the film was stronger for it.
Finally, there is Mulan herself. There has never been a Disney heroine like her. She is not a woman looking for a man. Even the independent Pocahontas had that “all she needs is a good roll in the hay” thing happening. Mulan is more than her sexual identity. And the film doesn’t dwell on her sexuality. There was one somewhat coy bit, as Mulan is confronted with a platoon of naked men heading into her private section of a lake. But it just acknowledges the issue, gets its laugh and moves back to the theme. Honor. And at the end, Mulan reminds us that honor is not just about our own glory, but about our families. Whether our immediate family or family of friends, our ethnic identity or the family of men. A powerful message indeed.
ALTERNATE RANT: Check out this review of Mulan from Los Angeles’ New Times. I agree on some things and disagree on others, but it is mostly a fair and funny review.
READER OF THE DAY: From Steve: “I saw Mulan this afternoon in the screening room of Buena Vista, Taiwan Branch. As a Chinese person, it’s really interesting to see this movie. First, you can watch many Chinese traditions that you don’t use or know anymore only because you live in ’90s. Second, you watch this stuff through the eyes of modern Americans or Disney’s point of view, and it always makes you feel something different about the old story you had already known since you were a little kid. Beside the great story and wonderful art work, I knew very clearly why Disney wanted to make Mulan, it’s all about the monkey of the market of Mainland China. Michael Ovitz made his last public speech when he was still at Disney. He said China would be the major market before next century. He said he even sent his son to learn Chinese. I knew this theory was correct because the year Disney decided to make Mulan was the same year they opened their own branch in Taiwan. Once they get familiar with Taiwan, it will be much easier to get the market of China as soon as they can. After all, Toy Story was No.1 at the box office of China in 1997, not including the merchandise they sold over there. (Yes, I knew many toys were made in China, but Disney now sells them back to the people made them).”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon