Film Reviews: Disturbingly Fun Nostalgia [Toys, 1992]

Toys (1992)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of a mature nature].

We all have films we think fondly of, especially those that inspire nostalgia within us. Most of you probably have a soft spot for the Disney renaissance, with The Lion King (1994) at the forefront. Some of you might remember such gems as Matilda (1996) or The Parent Trap (1998) remake.

When I was a kid, I watched a lot of different kinds of films, but they weren't usually tailored for children. There is one kid's film I remember, though: Toys (1992). I happen to own it, so I popped it on to relive my childhood, delve deep into the nostalgia of yet another classic performance by the late Robin Williams. What I ended up discovering was that this film, a film apparently aimed at children, is one of the craziest things I've ever seen. 

The premise is as follows: the owner of a toy factory (Donald O'Connor) dies and leaves his company to his military-based brother, Leland (Michael Gambon) because his son, Leslie (Robin Williams) and daughter, Alsatia (Joan Cusack) are not yet mature enough to run the business by themselves. Leland begins to incorporate war toys into the company's schemes in an attempt to relive his glory days, thus endangering the company and everyone in it, and so Leslie tries to thwart his attempts in order to save the future of toys.

Now, the one thing I vividly remembered about this film, confirmed by rewatching it, is that the set design and cinematography of Toys is absolutely awe-inspiring. The filmmakers took inspiration from René Magritte's paintings and created surrealist (and sometimes disturbing) imagery to truly capture a feeling of childlike imagination, paralleled by Leslie and Alsatia's characters. The vibrant palettes, varying sizes of props and the accompaniment of music from the likes of Tori Amos and Enya made for a bizarre viewing experience, something akin to that of Wes Anderson or Melanie Martinez: it felt innocent yet also vaguely threatening. 

What I didn't remember was the completely bonkers story line of Leland's essentially fascist regime of recruiting child soldiers to pilot toy planes and relive his glory days as an established militant general, depicting him as an unhinged Vietnam war veteran who slowly starts to lose his grip on reality. Leland's ideology of the military's future is for it to be affordable but also incorporate the concept of "warfare without a conscience", showing that his time fighting has robbed him of a moral compass. Again, this is a kid's film but go off, I guess.

Leland builds toys (some of which resemble something out of Mike Trim's War of the World sketchbook) and programmes behind restricted doors and begins to alienate himself from everybody else. Towards the end of the film, he even attempts to murder his own son.

Then there's Alsatia's character. As a kid, I remember her being an odd addition to the gang but finding her quirks endearing. As an adult, you can see that she is clearly coded to be autistic, which doesn't sit well when you consider that, contextually, Alsatia is actually a robot. 

Joan Cusack's performance conveys stereotypical traits of autism, such as abnormal speech behaviours and an intense focus for certain things: her brother never considers this to be odd due to knowing her true nature as something that is non-human, however, her uncle constantly berates her for her behaviour, referring to her as a "loony". In retrospect, these scenes are uncomfortable to watch and make you question why the writers of the film wrote her to be this way, as if to suggest there is a correlation between autistic behaviour and engineered programming (in other words, implying that autistic people are the "Other"). 

On the subject of writing, I had to research the certification for this film because there were far more adult jokes in this than I'd remembered. According to IMDb, it's a PG-13 (simply PG by the BBFC) due to "language and sensuality"; the words "big cock" and the phrase "war is the domain of a small penis" were included in this film and I don't know what I'd classify that as other than...gross.

There is a scene where Leland unnecessarily rambles on about how he can't achieve an American accent. There is a scene wherein Leslie and Gwen (Robin Wright) start 'doing the do' and some soldiers are listening in on them moaning. There is a scene where Leland almost lets Leslie be murdered by an aquatic war machine "to see if it works". 

As the credits rolled on Toys, I was left with a singular thought: who is this movie for? Surely it's wildly inappropriate for children but it's also extraordinarily weird for adults as well. Also the question remains, what is this film? It starts off as some outlandish and eccentric adventure which turns into a social drama and then the third act arrives with a Game of Thrones-esque battle scene of toys (which results in the massacre of all our fluffy, childhood friends). In the end, I can't help but classify Toys as some kind of horror-inspired anti-war film, though I think it's beyond labels at this point.

Would I recommend watching this? For curiosity's sake, sure. I'm glad I revisited Toys but I doubt I'll be sitting down to watch it again: if I'm looking for Williams in the 90s, I'll go for some Bicentennial Man (1999).

Overall rating: 5/10

- K

Why Catwoman [2004] is a Problematic Feminist Film

[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

Catwoman (2004)

In the early noughties, we had some pretty interesting superhero movies. There was the introduction of the X-Men (2000), Spider-Man (2002) and Hellboy (2004) but then there were also the films that we now consider to be merely garbage-fires, such as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003), Fantastic Four (2005) and who could forget the incomparable Daredevil (2003)?

Superhero films were upcoming but they certainly weren't perfect. Visual effects were getting better but the CGI was still...well, questionable. So it stands to reason that some of those early instalments of now very popular franchises were not exactly the best money could buy, but some are definitely held in higher regard as being the worst of the worst, which brings me to the film I'll be discussing today: Catwoman (2004). 

Me-owch!

If you're not familiar with Catwoman, allow me to explain why critics and fans alike found themselves hurling this one into the trash. 

Catwoman follows Patience Phillips (Halle Berry), a timid, young artist who works for the makeup industry designing ads. She's quiet, she's "unremarkable" and Patience is just kind of there, almost a background character as opposed to a protagonist. 

After overhearing about the industry's plan to sell 'Beau-line', a product that destroys the infrastructure of your face if you stop using it, Patience is ultimately chased down and swept out via sewer pipe as she's hilariously projected through the air and killed. And then a cute, magic cat resurrects her and ta-da, we've got ourselves a genetically enhanced, sewage-covered Catwoman. 

Now, I didn't find too much issue with the premise, as ludicrous as it presented itself to be. In fact, the incorporation of cat culture and Egyptian iconography (as cliché as it is) felt original and distanced itself from previous interpretations of Catwoman on-screen. 

The real issue is that Catwoman has abysmal dialogue, unnecessarily androcentric themes tightly packed into the story-line and, let's be honest, for a film supposedly celebrating femininity, there were a lot of men who worked on the film, including writers and directors. It's also a far throw from Catwoman's origin story in the DC comics, with the character being Selina Kyle, a thief from Gotham City with a damaged past: this, obviously, didn't go down well with fans.

Chunks of dialogue ranged from George Hedare (Lambert Wilson) verbally abusing women by criticising their "wardrobe" and lack of "manicure" to Catwoman toying with her love interest, Tom Lone (Benjamin Bratt), purposefully and explicitly demonstrating the shortcomings of men in the movie. It didn't feel genuine as much as it felt accusatory, and I think you can tell that men wrote this script thinking "this is what women think of us, this is how they view us as villains!" without quite understanding how, contextually, most women experience misogyny in the workplace, sexual misconduct and problems with male authority. 

So, it isn't feminist?

Now you're probably wondering how on earth I'd consider this film iconic and feminist, if blatant misogyny and poor writing skills taint the film. Well, not all of it is necessarily bad.

One of Catwoman's greatest strengths is its ability to strongly and efficiently demonstrate Patience's empowerment once she becomes the titular anti-hero. She begins to stand up to male authority figures by calling out her boss for being an "untalented, unethical, egomaniac", something a lot of women would like to do in their own lives but are unable to. 

Patience takes complete control of her romance with Tom, evident in their initial 'basketball scene', wherein she's flirtatious but she allows Tom to be voyeuristic and she allows herself to win the game. Even in the climax of the movie, she's the one who breaks things off with him, as opposed to him dumping her: this is due to the fact that she understands her duality of personality and takes responsibility for it.

She asserts her needs and desires, sometimes in a selfish way, but most of the time as a repercussion for other people's actions: verbally berating Mr. Hedare due to his negligent and frankly sexist behaviour, destroying her neighbour's door/speakers due to his disregard of how loud his parties were, physically injuring the guards who initially flushed the sewer pipe that killed her. 

Catwoman, at least in this film, conveys something that little girls everywhere enjoyed seeing: an independent woman in charge of her destiny and unrestricted by male influence. Captain Marvel (2019) may have done it better but Catwoman did it first. 

Beauty is pain

Unfortunately, one of Catwoman's biggest downfalls is it's villain, Laurel Hedare (Sharon Stone). She's definitely an interesting character: cast aside by the beauty industry for being too old ("and then I turned 40 and they threw me away"), Laurel embodies what a lot women fear and what the beauty industry even now strives to fix, which is ageing.

Her motives are understandable when you consider that she was renowned for her beauty and, despite her age, maintained that impressive, physical trait: yet she is brought to her proverbial knees by a man (George) simply because he deemed her unfit to represent the company. He further rubs this embarrassment in her face by cheating on Laurel with her younger replacement. 

With her husband's infidelity and her lowered ranking in the industry, of course it makes sense that Laurel wants revenge. However, unlike Patience, Laurel's actions are not justified: she murders people that get in her way and attempts to sabotage all women by letting the hazardous Beau-line be sold. 

In the climax of the film, we're given a showdown between the two women, and it feels hollow and contrived. Pitting woman against woman is an incredibly tired trope, one that only suggests that a male writer can see no other way to crawl to the finish line. Had either Laurel or Patience been more fleshed out as characters, it perhaps would've made for a probable and rewarding epic battle, but instead it was just a woman scorned taking out her anger on the other for no other reason than Patience standing in her way. 

I suppose it's refreshing in that, in the end, Catwoman tries to save Laurel from falling to her death (though she does end up falling anyway). It demonstrates Catwoman's ability to differentiate bad intentions from being an inherently bad person, a personal theme which she struggles with throughout the narrative. A more suitable ending, perhaps, would be Laurel being imprisoned and facing responsibility for her actions, paralleling that of the anti-hero. Sadly, that's not the ending we got.

Moving forward

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

So, perhaps Catwoman (2004) was not the best showcase of the character we've all come to know and love. The film was originally intended to be a solo film for Michelle Pfeiffer, following her role as Catwoman in Batman Returns (1992), however she declined to partake in production (hence the inclusion of Halle Berry and various rewrites to the script). 

Our most recent Catwoman is Anne Hathaway's portrayal in The Dark Knight Rises (2012), however it has been long thought that there will be no spin-off for Christopher Nolan's iconic Batman trilogy, therefore it is unlikely that Hathaway will be donning those pointy, leather ears again.

Interestingly, though, Heroic Hollywood this year rumoured that Matt Reeves (who will be directing the newest Batman film, simply titled The Batman) is on the lookout for a Catwoman co-star for Robert Pattinson, specifically a WOC. This may prove to be nothing more than talk but it would be deeply fascinating to see another iteration of Catwoman that could perhaps take the reins and give us the solo movie we all deserve to see.

As long as it's directed by a woman, of course. 

- K