On My Shelf: The Labyrinth (1986)
The Labyrinth is one of those movies that I totally should have watched as a child -- but didn't. I had never even heard of it. So, I watched it as an adult... and, as a result, I'm able to view it without the rose-colored glasses of childhood.
Which is not to say, Christina, that I hate this movie. There are several things I like, and several things I don't like, and I'll talk about them all in turn.
Plot: It's more or less Alice in Wonderland in the 1980's, with David Bowie music and some vaguely mature undertones. Jennifer Connelly's a spoiled brat teen who throws a big fit when she's asked to babysit her infant brother. She recites some stuff from a random play about Goblins stealing babies (because, who doesn't have one of those Goblins-stealing-babies plays lying around) and, to her (marginal) surprise, an actual Goblin King (David Bowie) appears and steals the baby. She's like, "Oh, hey, I didn't really mean it," and he's like, "Well, if you want him back, you have to travel through MY WEIRD LABYRINTH FULL OF WEIRD STUFF." And then she does. The End.
Things I Like: I can give you four good reasons to see this movie: music by David Bowie, puppeteering, visual design, and David Bowie. David Bowie is one of those performers who isn't an especially good actor (he comes across as a little self-conscious at times) but he's charismatic and a lot of fun to watch.
The visual design is wonderfully fantastic (designs by Brian Froud), and the puppeteering is superb. (...And, for the record, Jennifer Connelly is fine, too. You would think a kid playing a spoiled brat would be harder to watch, but she's pleasant enough as a character [she gets over being a brat pretty quick] and was going through a very cute phase.)
If you don't think she's cute as a button in this movie, then I
just don't know what to say.Now let's talk about the less good things.
*UNDERTONES /WRITING QUALITY: Now, as I said, the plot itself is pretty basic, and it's more or less Alice in Wonderland at many points... but there's some weird undertones going on there that I'm not quite sure what to do with. I mean, it's clear that Sarah and the Goblin King are "interested" in each other... yet this ostensibly romantic relationship is never really discussed, nor acted-upon, outside a single ballroom dance. (Which is good, because the Goblin King is an adult David Bowie, and Sarah appears to be about 13.)
Is this a young girl's coming-of-age story? Would the situation have been clearer if David Bowie had been a stronger actor? There is one (kind of out of the blue) scene where Sarah suddenly decides she doesn't need all her childhood toys anymore... but it's hardly a theme explored throughout the film. Or is the ballroom scene just a canny attempt by the filmmakers to do some wish fulfillment for pubescent girls (and appeal to that market demographic? I mean, I'm not going to say it didn't work).
Well, I've spent quite a while thinking about it, and in the end -- I just don't think there are clever, subtle things going on here. I'm of the opinion that what we are actually seeing here is just the clunkiness of a not-fully-fleshed-out-idea in a script.
* ACCENTS: This might just be me, but Hoggle, our main goblin-type creature, has a voice that only works when his patently false British accent slips. When he's trying really hard to do the British accent, it sounds like an American (without much of an ear for such things) doing a British accent. He's got the words down but not the inflection, so it sounds phoney. In the end, he just sounds like a muppet, which works in a five-minute long muppet sketch, but not in a full-length movie. Hoggle's voice always gets on my nerves.
* INAPPROPRIATELY PYTHONIC: This movie was written by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame...
...And you can definitely see his influence. There are scenes and sections of dialogue that really feel as though they were written mainly for the humor value and not because they particularly fit in a girl's pseudo-coming-of-age in a fantastical dream world. Let me pick out just two:
*Hoggle First Appearance: The first time we see Hoggle -- he's peeing. This is a terrible introduction for a character from a film standpoint (assuming that his pee isn't going to be a major plot-point. Spoiler: It's not). So, when we first see him, his back is turned and we can't see his face, and the first words out of his mouth are something to the effect of "Oh, excuse me," -- all of which tells us nothing about the type of character that Hoggle is. A moment later, he goes back to what he'd apparently been doing before he had to stop for a pee break -- killing fairies with a flit gun. Him doing that would have been a better introductory image of Hoggle (showing from shot one that he's a potentially cruel and rather unpleasant little man), rather than a cheap potty-humor laugh.
Pee!*The Bog of Eternal Stench: Is ten minutes of fart sounds from a swamp full of anuses. Granted, I can't gripe about this from a structural standpoint as there's nothing structurally wrong with its inclusion... and it's also going to get plentiful laughs from the 5-9 year-old demographic -- so, I guess I can't complain too much about its presence in what is ostensibly a children's movie. (And yet, I do. If Wizard of Oz didn't need poop jokes, why does this movie?)
Swamp anus.I think the main problem with The Labyrinth is that it feels uneven. One moment it's all magically mystical and weird fantastic stuff is happening -- and the next scene is a solid wall of fart jokes. It's tone is all over the place. Not to mention that the film's major selling-point is that it has David Bowie in it -- and there just isn't enough David Bowie!
It's not a terrible movie, but it's not a great movie, either. All and all, I can recommend that you watch it if you haven't seen it yet (if only so you'll get all the pop-culture references to it) ... but it's not going to be a wholly flawless experience. That said, many people can wholly overlook the faults in favor of its good points...
... So, really, it's up to you. In the end, I'll just say that it's...
RECOMMENDED(with reservations)
Which is not to say, Christina, that I hate this movie. There are several things I like, and several things I don't like, and I'll talk about them all in turn.
Plot: It's more or less Alice in Wonderland in the 1980's, with David Bowie music and some vaguely mature undertones. Jennifer Connelly's a spoiled brat teen who throws a big fit when she's asked to babysit her infant brother. She recites some stuff from a random play about Goblins stealing babies (because, who doesn't have one of those Goblins-stealing-babies plays lying around) and, to her (marginal) surprise, an actual Goblin King (David Bowie) appears and steals the baby. She's like, "Oh, hey, I didn't really mean it," and he's like, "Well, if you want him back, you have to travel through MY WEIRD LABYRINTH FULL OF WEIRD STUFF." And then she does. The End.
Things I Like: I can give you four good reasons to see this movie: music by David Bowie, puppeteering, visual design, and David Bowie. David Bowie is one of those performers who isn't an especially good actor (he comes across as a little self-conscious at times) but he's charismatic and a lot of fun to watch.
The visual design is wonderfully fantastic (designs by Brian Froud), and the puppeteering is superb. (...And, for the record, Jennifer Connelly is fine, too. You would think a kid playing a spoiled brat would be harder to watch, but she's pleasant enough as a character [she gets over being a brat pretty quick] and was going through a very cute phase.)
If you don't think she's cute as a button in this movie, then Ijust don't know what to say.Now let's talk about the less good things.
*UNDERTONES /WRITING QUALITY: Now, as I said, the plot itself is pretty basic, and it's more or less Alice in Wonderland at many points... but there's some weird undertones going on there that I'm not quite sure what to do with. I mean, it's clear that Sarah and the Goblin King are "interested" in each other... yet this ostensibly romantic relationship is never really discussed, nor acted-upon, outside a single ballroom dance. (Which is good, because the Goblin King is an adult David Bowie, and Sarah appears to be about 13.)
Is this a young girl's coming-of-age story? Would the situation have been clearer if David Bowie had been a stronger actor? There is one (kind of out of the blue) scene where Sarah suddenly decides she doesn't need all her childhood toys anymore... but it's hardly a theme explored throughout the film. Or is the ballroom scene just a canny attempt by the filmmakers to do some wish fulfillment for pubescent girls (and appeal to that market demographic? I mean, I'm not going to say it didn't work).
Well, I've spent quite a while thinking about it, and in the end -- I just don't think there are clever, subtle things going on here. I'm of the opinion that what we are actually seeing here is just the clunkiness of a not-fully-fleshed-out-idea in a script.
* ACCENTS: This might just be me, but Hoggle, our main goblin-type creature, has a voice that only works when his patently false British accent slips. When he's trying really hard to do the British accent, it sounds like an American (without much of an ear for such things) doing a British accent. He's got the words down but not the inflection, so it sounds phoney. In the end, he just sounds like a muppet, which works in a five-minute long muppet sketch, but not in a full-length movie. Hoggle's voice always gets on my nerves.
* INAPPROPRIATELY PYTHONIC: This movie was written by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame...
...And you can definitely see his influence. There are scenes and sections of dialogue that really feel as though they were written mainly for the humor value and not because they particularly fit in a girl's pseudo-coming-of-age in a fantastical dream world. Let me pick out just two:
*Hoggle First Appearance: The first time we see Hoggle -- he's peeing. This is a terrible introduction for a character from a film standpoint (assuming that his pee isn't going to be a major plot-point. Spoiler: It's not). So, when we first see him, his back is turned and we can't see his face, and the first words out of his mouth are something to the effect of "Oh, excuse me," -- all of which tells us nothing about the type of character that Hoggle is. A moment later, he goes back to what he'd apparently been doing before he had to stop for a pee break -- killing fairies with a flit gun. Him doing that would have been a better introductory image of Hoggle (showing from shot one that he's a potentially cruel and rather unpleasant little man), rather than a cheap potty-humor laugh.
Pee!*The Bog of Eternal Stench: Is ten minutes of fart sounds from a swamp full of anuses. Granted, I can't gripe about this from a structural standpoint as there's nothing structurally wrong with its inclusion... and it's also going to get plentiful laughs from the 5-9 year-old demographic -- so, I guess I can't complain too much about its presence in what is ostensibly a children's movie. (And yet, I do. If Wizard of Oz didn't need poop jokes, why does this movie?)
Swamp anus.I think the main problem with The Labyrinth is that it feels uneven. One moment it's all magically mystical and weird fantastic stuff is happening -- and the next scene is a solid wall of fart jokes. It's tone is all over the place. Not to mention that the film's major selling-point is that it has David Bowie in it -- and there just isn't enough David Bowie!It's not a terrible movie, but it's not a great movie, either. All and all, I can recommend that you watch it if you haven't seen it yet (if only so you'll get all the pop-culture references to it) ... but it's not going to be a wholly flawless experience. That said, many people can wholly overlook the faults in favor of its good points...
... So, really, it's up to you. In the end, I'll just say that it's...
RECOMMENDED(with reservations)
No comments have been added yet.
