My thoughts on 'Sing', its controversy, and Illumination in general. · 5:19pm Jan 21st, 2017
Hey, all. Been a little busy, a little under the weather because of a 24-hour bug (literally; fever broke out yesterday, starting to go down now) so fics have been slow. Expect a ramble on the success of Warrior Meet soon, or the progress on Rainbow Dash and the Shameless Self-Insert, or lack thereof, on both counts.
But enough about that. Went to see the movie Sing on Monday, with my sister. It was the Flemish-dubbed version, sadly, but we were the only two people in the entire theatre to see it, so yay-ness!
And what do I think of it?
I liked it. A lot. And I highly recommend you go see it.
Now, that's not to say it's an excellent movie, per se. It's definitely geared towards a crowd that prefers slice-of-life stories, that enjoys creative uses of the worldbuilding involved with animal stories, and that doesn't mind stories that have been done before. Which, I think, includes a lot of my readership, hence the recommendation.
"But Cracker, isn't it terribly predictable?"
As weird as it might sound, not entirely. A lot of it, you can see coming, yes. But there are little twists here and there, neat little deviations that aren't on the list of things to check off in a family movie like this. I can't really go into detail without spoiling it, so beware from this point on.
Ready for spoilers? Here goes.
It plays out more like an episode of My Little Pony, season 1 especially, than it does a stereotypical 'tick the boxes' family film.
The koala doesn't get his theatre back. He loses ownership. Pure and simple.
The porcupine doesn't get back with her boyfriend, he doesn't learn the error of his ways.
Gunther, my God, Gunther, the Lady Gaga pig. You would think from one look at any of the trailers that he's going to be an antagonist, a careless callous cad who only wants to hog the spotlight, but he's not. He is honestly just some guy who loves dancing and who gives zero flying feathers about what anybody thinks of him. I was honestly and pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong on that one.
There is no financial reward for the singers. In fact, most of them don't actually need the money, that was kind of surprising to realise in hindsight.
But then what is the movie about? What's the best comparison? On the surface, it looks like it's trying to be Sister Act 2, with the singing contest to save the important building or whatever. In terms of theme, I'd say it's a lot closer to The Muppets. Still kind of the same plot, but not quite. You've got the diverse cast with a passion for theatre, and part of the film's final resolution is to rekindle a passion in a character whose 'spark' has otherwise died, let's say. But these aren't professionals, not all of them. Some of them are, but some aren't. It's a good mix, and there's a lot contrast shown.
The main character, Buster the koala, is in the mess he's in because of his own faults. And those faults are not repaired by the end of the movie. He starts off inept and ends slightly less inept. The scene where he's trying to show Ash the porcupine what song to sing only further highlights what kind of character he is: one with a lot of heart and dedication, but no actual skill to back it up. That's... actually not a bad thing to have in a character. Little kids, especially, can stand to learn that even if your heart is in the right place, you can still be doing things wrong. Heck, nowadays some adults can stand to have a reminder 
But what about the racism in the movie? All the gorillas are crooks!
This one kind of bugs me, because it's a criticism that's supposed to be absent in a movie involving animals. Going as far back as the Medieval era, animal stories were used to say things that you couldn't say in regular stories, with human protagonists. Not to drag Reinaert into it again, but... yeah, Reinaert is still a thing!
The basic principle was this: god-fearing people could root for an animal who did terrible things and not fear for their souls, because it was an animal doing it. Bad things could befall an animal, and laughing at that misfortune wasn't an issue, because it was only an animal. God wouldn't punish you for that. Even if the animal represented a king or the clergy.
Minor side remark: king of animals? King Noble the lion, and every lion king after? African animal. Meditate on that racial stereotype.
Using animal protagonists lets you cover issues or tell stories that you cannot with humans, because humans have this nasty thing called history and context. Part of the reason I'm reluctant to see Zootopia is because I honestly don't trust any major studios to get up to the Reinaert level anymore (though Niko did this really well, so yay, European films?) Anyway, unless there is a 'Gorilla History Month' in the world, or 'Gorilla ghettos' in this fictional world, I'm sorry, but gorillas aren't the same as black people, and they're not being discriminated based on their species.
What they're probably getting discriminated on is their sheer size and strength 
. Since, you know, you had a nightclub bouncer as well. Seems like that's something you want to discriminate on for certain jobs, just like intelligence is something to discriminate on for other jobs, and that's something that varies between animals, too. Also, all the gorillas in this movie are racist stereotypes? All, what, six of them, most of which don't even get names? What about the bears? All bears in this movie (all three of them, nice sample size, huh?) are racist stereotypes of Russians. What about the fish? Or the squids? Is no one going to bring up the white mouse who physically attacks some poor baboon, or the white female mouse who only notices a guy because he's got a big car? Why is that not racism?
One more remark on the gorilla thing, then I'm done. Johnny, the young gorilla contestant, is supposedly offensive, too? Consider how quickly he learns to play the piano (I gather he learned when he was a kid, but I'm not sure if the dub carried that over. Still, point stands.) Consider that when the theatre gets flooded, he's the one who saves everyone. The only character who does anything truly heroic is the gorilla. Consider that his father, in the end, accomplished nothing with his break-out other than to tell his son how he feels. Even if they're supposed to represent some group of people, which is tenuous at best, that's not even such a bad representation.
Moving right along, I do like how they play with the species angle in this movie.
Miss Crawley being a chameleon with a glass eye was a nice touch, since... well, real chameleons can turn their eyes every which way. I do think they missed a great opportunity, though, to give a quick nod to Bedknobs and Broomsticks and make the secretary a secretarybird.
Meena, the elephant with a crippling case of shyness, also makes sense when you consider elephants never forget. Embarrassment would last longer. Also, her grandfather is dressed like Babar, for some reason. I think he even mentions becoming king of something if he had her voice. Anyone got a confirmation on that?
You would think Rosita the pig building such a massive contraption and helping out in the rebuilding the way she does is unrealistic, and it is to an extent, but... pigs are pretty smart animals, remember? They create some leeway by making that character a pig. A dolphin would have worked too, I guess, but the practical implications probably turned the director off. Not to mention the reputation bottle-nose dolphins have as err *ahem* predators of a different kind 
Speaking of Rosita, she's also the character that pretty much tells the audience "This is an Illumination movie." What do I mean by that?
Well, every major Illumination movie has so far been a) pretty safe and predictable in terms of plot and theme b) had a look and feel that was clearly different from Disney and Dreamworks, for better or worse, and c) had a horde.
Despicable Me and its sequels had the Minions, The Lorax had the hummingfish and the marmalutes, I think Hop had the chickens, and Secret Life of Pets... well, okay, I haven't actually seen that many of their movies, so I'm not really one to talk. Feel free to prove me wrong in the comments. Bottom line is: if you compare Sing to Despicable Me, Rosita's kids are the Minions, basically.
And maybe that's the direction they can go into to form an identity separate from sister-company Dreamworks: crowd scenes. Maybe every movie they release from now on will have some big crowd of creatures as comic relief. I haven't gone too much into the technical aspects, because you really need frame-by-frame viewing to do that, but from what I saw, it was a technically proficient movie, no obvious corners cut. Rosita's ears showed subsurface scattering, the particle fur was neatly done, the eyesockets were a little flat, but given how much of a pain those can be, I'm tempted to just steal that instead of complaining. And the crowds, especially the kids, were well animated. That's not an easy trick to pull off, and given how other, bigger studios are innovating in other fields, it might be advisable to just stick to that strength and not bother trying to compete on that uneven playing field.
I think Sing is definitely worth watching, even if it is pretty light. It has heart to it, it makes a nice display of friendship between different kinds of characters from different generations, that's a good thing. Much like the Niko movies, it's not a kids' flick, but a family film. And once it starts getting aired on television, I have no doubt it'll be one of those movies that'll pull me away from my laptop for a night. That's something not a lot of movies can do anymore. If the choice is between this and a Harry Potter film, I'm watching this.
As for Illumination's future endeavours? I think they're onto something here, and I hope they can continue with it. Sure, a sequel here and there will get the cash in, but Sing at least shows they know what they're doing. They won't be stuck with Gru for decades to come, they can make a diverse cast work. Right now, it doesn't look like they'll be doing anything too risky until at least 2020, but once they do, I hope they take note of what made this movie work and continue with that. It won't be Oscar material, but at least it'll be something of substance.
Or, you know, they can just make a straight-up sequel to this movie and include reindeer or bats playing metal.
Come on, you know you want to see a furry Nightwish on the big screen, admit it.
Actually... this might work too.
Cracker out.
Zootopia is amazing go watch it. Stereotypes are the main theme of the movie and they play with it a few ways, mostly along the predator/prey line, but also some specific fox and rabbit things. It ends on a positive note because yea, Disney, and the violence is very limited because of the rating, but there are some hints of real darkness in there. It absolutely has some substance and is worth seeing.
Also I want to see Sing far more than before reading your post.
4390719
My main concern is that everyone I've heard talk about it hypes up Zootopia as a parable or fable of racism, and I'm going to come out of it underwhelmed and thinking "Well, there's another Internet rant I have to write."
Same thing with that mess about X-Men movies supposedly referencing racism and LGBT issues. It's not, and demonstrably so. Same with Frozen, that was underwhelming, too. But, in all fairness, that's coming from a European, and a Belgian at that. Possibly just a bias talking there.
As for Sing: go watch it if you are a fan of the Muppet movies, and if you like Slice of Life stories on FimFiction, especially the kind where you have older and younger characters interacting, because the range in this movie is pretty wide, actually, wider than it looks. There's also some very well-set-up animation, not on a technical level but on concept level. Good non-verbal stuff during the performances.
If you want something with a proper villain or some shock value, skip it for now, wait for it to air on TV, maybe. The last thing I want is to encourage someone to spend money on something they don't like
. It is entertaining, and it has shades of the Muppets, but...
Imagine the Muppets, making their 2011 movie in the nineties, with all the stereotypes of that era. It's that kind of film, and the trailers don't quite convey that. There are still some surprises, for sure, and to the best of my recollection, there wasn't anything really bad in it, either, except maybe the mouse and baboon thing and (possibly due to the dub) Gunther committing one terrible crime against the German language. But neither of those are long, or deal-breakers. Make of that what you will.
4390745 Well underwhelmed in terms of racism is possible but overall the whole plot hinges on stereotypes, starting with foxes are bad and a rabbit being a cop is a silly idea. The first obviously gets broken pretty fast and things only get more interesting from there, including the villain using stereotypes as a weapon. At the same time the bunny town, called Carrotville possibly, has a population counter that's speeding up like an odometer on a car on the town sign, and there are other more subtle cases of some stereotypes exist for a reason. Though being Disney there is a clear message of you can always be better than a truly negative stereotype.
More than anything though you should see it because it's a beautiful and interesting movie with a glimpse at a full world that is not our own even if there are many similarities. Unless you really hate buddy cop movies or mysteries because that's what genre it really is beyond the fluffyness and tails. It's currently my favorite movie of all time period even if I know it's not the best by any stretch I still just absolutely love it and strongly believe everyone that might like it should see it. Based on your various blog posts I really think you will.