Wow Luke, you're really trying to rile up the commentariat here and I'm eager to read what some have to say. I find your disagreements with the rage machine to be provocative in a way that I hope will bring discussion here. What made Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris great was that they sought to provoke as much as they sought to review and I feel a bit like a Peckinpah fan reading Kael after reading your piece today.
My own take on the critical community is a bit different from your own. Of course, I think there are those who are seeking to benefit from rage clicks. All the scholarship on polarization and social media shows that anger results in more engagement and if you want to make money it's the way to go. However, I do think there are some who genuinely believe what they are arguing.
Where I disagree with you is whether an "updated" version of anything is necessary or appropriate in general, or whether it is best done through the creation of a new thing. At what point do changes made shift a creation away from a version of the story to something different?
I grew up on subversive and deconstructive fiction. It was my introduction to genre media. Elric was one of the first fantasy characters I ever read and my youth was spent reading Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns and that means that when I encounter something that isn't a deconstruction it feels fresh to me. It is the "Hollywood Ending" that feels creative to me, while the "realistic and subversive" ending seems stale. I'm the opposite of most people this way.
In fact, I find deconstructive writing to be lazy writing. I've come to think of Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns as semi-boring and predictable tales and find Moore's more sincere run on Supreme to be a better example of him as a good comic book writer.
All of that aside, I don't think of the new Disney live Action Snow White as a deconstruction of Snow White, or even much of an update to modern sensibilities. From what I've seen, and that's far from everything, it is the equivalent of the "HR making everything bland" version of Snow White. It's the "let's not offend" anyone version of the film. It seems that this is intentional, hence the recent return of the Dwarves in response to pressure. Far from being brave, it is just driven by risk aversion. Of course, it's corporate so that's completely understandable when a business had decided to move away from creativity to bland inoffensiveness. It's the Dane Cook of Disney animated films. Dane Cook made his money on "appearing" to be offensive while actually being very bland. In this case Disney is attempting to appear to update something when instead it's as if they let Disney's censors write the film in response to random public surveys.
I understand why Disney might want to do the milk toast approach though. After releasing The Last Jedi, they are wary of experimentation. The Last Jedi is not only the worst Star Wars film it is also the worst Rian Johnson film by a long shot. Yes, even worse than Ninja Ko. This is in part because of what I discussed earlier. It was a deconstruction of Star Wars, but it happened in the middle of the mythic cycle. As such, it betrayed the source material. Had it been its own film, outside the Skywalker Saga and thus with some different characters, I think I'd be quite fond. Instead, I find it lazy.
When Michael Moorcock wanted to deconstruct Conan, he didn't write Conan stories where he was corrupt and infirm. Instead, Moorcock created Elric, a character in his own right, and made new things. The question I often ask when I see a reimagining, any reimagining, is "would this be better if it was its own thing 'reacting' to the prior work?" If the answer is yes, then I'm usually going to be very critical.
If you think Disney brought back the dwarfs in response to pressure, you're accepting the Daily Mail's framing, which, as a half-Brit, I wouldn't suggest. Disney always said those leaked pictures were of stand-ins, and making realistic CG models as seen in the recent photo isn't something they would have pulled off in the last couple of months alone. Grumpy and Dopey move too much merch to delete altogether. The change is that they're not small, which aligns with their response to Peter Dinklage early on that they'd be "magical creatures" or whatever.
We have very little idea what the new one is or isn't. What is clear to me is how much the original plays to specific '30s frames of reference and style, and any version made today must do similarly if it is to communicate with modern audiences in the same way.
I'm basing my assumptions Variety's framing of the inner workings of Disney lately (https://variety.com/2023/film/features/marvel-jonathan-majors-problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/), their over reactions regarding James Gunn a few years ago, and my own observations. I don't read the Daily Mail and you'll notice, I didn't mention the heights (unlike others we've chatted with on the topic in other venues) because that's not a part of the "stay inoffensive" strategy that I'm talking about. Disney has always been risk averse, but they seem to really be walking on egg shells more lately. As I said, Disney has become the Dane Cook of movie making. They want to appear to be pushing boundaries, but are playing it safer than when they were playing it safe.
I loved your comparison to vaudeville and think that is spot on for presentation style. I'm just seeing Disney make a similar mistake to the one Spielberg made when he changed all the police guns to radios and flashlights. I think they have become far more risk averse than ever, even to the point where there current Grumpy and Dopey don't look very good and where I doubt they'll include Dopey at all. And to be honest, I think I'd be happy to see him go away.
Wow Luke, you're really trying to rile up the commentariat here and I'm eager to read what some have to say. I find your disagreements with the rage machine to be provocative in a way that I hope will bring discussion here. What made Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris great was that they sought to provoke as much as they sought to review and I feel a bit like a Peckinpah fan reading Kael after reading your piece today.
My own take on the critical community is a bit different from your own. Of course, I think there are those who are seeking to benefit from rage clicks. All the scholarship on polarization and social media shows that anger results in more engagement and if you want to make money it's the way to go. However, I do think there are some who genuinely believe what they are arguing.
Where I disagree with you is whether an "updated" version of anything is necessary or appropriate in general, or whether it is best done through the creation of a new thing. At what point do changes made shift a creation away from a version of the story to something different?
I grew up on subversive and deconstructive fiction. It was my introduction to genre media. Elric was one of the first fantasy characters I ever read and my youth was spent reading Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns and that means that when I encounter something that isn't a deconstruction it feels fresh to me. It is the "Hollywood Ending" that feels creative to me, while the "realistic and subversive" ending seems stale. I'm the opposite of most people this way.
In fact, I find deconstructive writing to be lazy writing. I've come to think of Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns as semi-boring and predictable tales and find Moore's more sincere run on Supreme to be a better example of him as a good comic book writer.
All of that aside, I don't think of the new Disney live Action Snow White as a deconstruction of Snow White, or even much of an update to modern sensibilities. From what I've seen, and that's far from everything, it is the equivalent of the "HR making everything bland" version of Snow White. It's the "let's not offend" anyone version of the film. It seems that this is intentional, hence the recent return of the Dwarves in response to pressure. Far from being brave, it is just driven by risk aversion. Of course, it's corporate so that's completely understandable when a business had decided to move away from creativity to bland inoffensiveness. It's the Dane Cook of Disney animated films. Dane Cook made his money on "appearing" to be offensive while actually being very bland. In this case Disney is attempting to appear to update something when instead it's as if they let Disney's censors write the film in response to random public surveys.
I understand why Disney might want to do the milk toast approach though. After releasing The Last Jedi, they are wary of experimentation. The Last Jedi is not only the worst Star Wars film it is also the worst Rian Johnson film by a long shot. Yes, even worse than Ninja Ko. This is in part because of what I discussed earlier. It was a deconstruction of Star Wars, but it happened in the middle of the mythic cycle. As such, it betrayed the source material. Had it been its own film, outside the Skywalker Saga and thus with some different characters, I think I'd be quite fond. Instead, I find it lazy.
When Michael Moorcock wanted to deconstruct Conan, he didn't write Conan stories where he was corrupt and infirm. Instead, Moorcock created Elric, a character in his own right, and made new things. The question I often ask when I see a reimagining, any reimagining, is "would this be better if it was its own thing 'reacting' to the prior work?" If the answer is yes, then I'm usually going to be very critical.
If you think Disney brought back the dwarfs in response to pressure, you're accepting the Daily Mail's framing, which, as a half-Brit, I wouldn't suggest. Disney always said those leaked pictures were of stand-ins, and making realistic CG models as seen in the recent photo isn't something they would have pulled off in the last couple of months alone. Grumpy and Dopey move too much merch to delete altogether. The change is that they're not small, which aligns with their response to Peter Dinklage early on that they'd be "magical creatures" or whatever.
We have very little idea what the new one is or isn't. What is clear to me is how much the original plays to specific '30s frames of reference and style, and any version made today must do similarly if it is to communicate with modern audiences in the same way.
I'm basing my assumptions Variety's framing of the inner workings of Disney lately (https://variety.com/2023/film/features/marvel-jonathan-majors-problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/), their over reactions regarding James Gunn a few years ago, and my own observations. I don't read the Daily Mail and you'll notice, I didn't mention the heights (unlike others we've chatted with on the topic in other venues) because that's not a part of the "stay inoffensive" strategy that I'm talking about. Disney has always been risk averse, but they seem to really be walking on egg shells more lately. As I said, Disney has become the Dane Cook of movie making. They want to appear to be pushing boundaries, but are playing it safer than when they were playing it safe.
I loved your comparison to vaudeville and think that is spot on for presentation style. I'm just seeing Disney make a similar mistake to the one Spielberg made when he changed all the police guns to radios and flashlights. I think they have become far more risk averse than ever, even to the point where there current Grumpy and Dopey don't look very good and where I doubt they'll include Dopey at all. And to be honest, I think I'd be happy to see him go away.
Snow White>Snow White