06. (Nov. 19) Edison (2005, David J. Burke) 4 / 10

Drama, Thriller / USA / 97 minutes / Rated R

The cavalcade of children's cinematic garbage continues with Disney's Chicken Little, a disquieting and falsely innocuous rotten egg of a film that oppresses us with irresponsible gender stereotypes and cruel, offensive behaviour at times when compassion ought to be modelled. Further hampered by a totally derivative plot and an ungainly dependence upon clunky pop music montages (thanks a lot, Shrek...), director Mark Dindal's follow-up to 2000's delightful The Emperor's New Groove is a major disappointment. This is not the way Disney should have launched its foray into non-Pixar computer animation. I regret having seen it.

Before I continue, I feel as though I must defend myself somewhat. You see, I think there is a tendency for people to immediately assume that when an adult unfavourably reviews a children's movie, it is because that person is too old and therefore grossly unqualified to appreciate it for what it is - something made for children's entertainment and consumption, not for deep critical analysis. Suddenly, such an adult takes on the personality of an intellectual killjoy who ought to just leave the poor children alone. After all, if the children are happy, why disturb them? - especially when it gives parents and sitters a couple hours with which to relax. To that, I say children can be happy stuffing themselves with junk food or doing any number of deleterious activities which they don't know any better to avoid. Watching movies like Chicken Little, which is the equivalent of gorging oneself on cheap dollar-store candy, takes the place of more enriching and developmentally engaging pursuits. I do not apologize for wanting something better for our children. As someone who works with children on a daily basis, I care too much about them.

Chicken Little could have been a much better film, to be sure. By now we are all familiar with the basic story: Chicken Little, struck by an acorn on the head one day, believes the sky is falling and sets out with friends along the way to tell the King, who sends them home after kindly telling them that the sky cannot fall and that it was only an acorn that fell. It's a cherished and endearing tale of having the courage and conviction to do the right thing. For nearly the first half of the film, though, Dindal seems to relish stripping away Chicken Little's courage and conviction, cruelly setting him up for pratfalls which the audience is manipulated into laughing at. Children are taught to ridicule those who fervently and courageously attempt to do good when the majority of people scornfully look the other way or chide. They are also taught that grown-ups are, by and large, uncompassionate authoritarians who have no interest in their lives, unlike the king in the actual Chicken Little fable. Children aren't able to grasp satire and hyperbole half as well as older people are; they are undiscerningly observant. Movies like these actually help lay a foundation of mistrust and fear that is unnecessary and damaging, making it look okay to be a bystander if not a relational bully.

The film's second half, of course, sees Chicken Little triumph, and it will be the argument of many that his eventual victory washes away any previous hard feelings. But why should that be acceptable? It's the same tack taken by the fickle characters of the film, who all but make genuine reparations when the time comes for everyone to make friends with him (with the exception of his father in a crucial scene, which did not ring very true and was instead more of a Big Important Dramatic Moment). It suddenly becomes okay to turn on a dime and accept Chicken Little automatically, and nobody need exchange true feelings or "talk things out," as Abby Mallard would prefer (even when Chicken Little and his father do eventually talk). Sentiment, then, is reduced to a false and hollow plot mechanism by the end of the film, and the entire experience is resolutely shallow and insipid.

Obviously, audiences are supposed to be passively strung along, but this is terribly counterproductive when the majority of educators struggle to foster children's critical thinking skills. I may not have liked this movie, but make no mistake - I am a big supporter of quality children's fare. At a time when so many excellent children's films are widely available on home video and DVD, in both animated and live-action form (much of the Disney back catalogue, Japanese Studio Ghibli films, Whale Rider, The Spongebob Squarepants Movie, and the Wallace & Gromit features to name a few), there is absolutely no reason one should see Chicken Little.

(The British Film Institute (BFI) has recently compiled a list of what it believes to be the fifty best must-see children's films. A copy of that list, along with additional information, can be found by clicking here.)

Now here's an indecent proposal. House Washington (Tyshawn Bryant, who also produced), a muscular and sweaty black basketball hustler, stands tall on 'his' basketball court until a lone white man named J.C. Matado (Daniel Sol) emerges, dressed to the nines and eager to challenge his boastfulness with an attractive proposition. The colour of their skin is crucial. Putting his expensive house, brand-new convertible, and $200K on the line (much more than what the thousand-dollar-a-game Washington is used to), Matado wants just one game with him. The only hitch is the most damning element of all; if Washington loses, Matado gets to take his life. Suddenly, the quaint and solitary baskbetball court nestled inconspicuously amongst trees and hills and overseeing a vast territory of mountains and plains becomes an isolated battle arena of mythic proportions. It's an all-out race war on display, fought by two warriors who are emblematic of hundreds of years of seething racial history and hostility in America.

That is the bold premise behind Shoot-Out, a startling new indie short film directed by David Branin that works as an artistic companion piece to Crash, this year's bigger-budget race movie. Unlike its hopeful counterpart, however, Shoot-Out offers a considerably more despairing viewpoint, jarringly brought to light in its resolution. In this battle to the death for racial domination, Branin and Bryant appear to suggest that there can be no peaceful resolution and that a winner must be declared.

Adding to the film's overall effect is its black and white palette, giving it an austere look and feel which underscores Branin and Bryant's allegory for white bloodlust and black adversity and resilience. (A colour version exists, planned for inclusion on the forthcoming DVD, though I think it lessens the impact of the original.) Finally, the two principal actors go for broke, demonstrating a ferocity and intensity beyond the call of duty that indicates definite skill and control in their craft. In all aspects, Shoot-Out is a first-class independent short and hopefully an indication of greater things to come from Branin and Bryant.

(Shoot-Out was produced by The Dream Regime and will be available on DVD soon. For more information please visit http://dreamregime.blogspot.com.)

As a suppliment to this website in between full-length film reviews, I am creating monthly screening logs of new films I happen to see which I will update periodically each time something new is viewed. What I will include is the film's title, director, and year of release, its running length and MPAA rating, my number rating out of 10, availability within the Moncton area, and additional helpful comments if any.

Feedback of any sort is appreciated and I welcome all suggestions and recommendations for future reviews.