The Big Bad Fox and Other Tales

Year 13, Day 357 - 12/23/21 - Movie #4,000

BEFORE: Here we go, the 300th and last film of the year, and the 4,000th film overall since I started this mad process. This also marks the third year in a row that I've watched a "perfect chain", 300 movies linked by actors - or archive film appearances of historical figures, those count too under my system.  In a couple days, I'll try to break down the year somehow, to figure out who had the most appearances, and what screening formats were dominant during the year.  (I already know I went to the movies just ONCE during this recovery year, I hope to change that during 2022.)

It's still a weird time that nobody could have predicted - the last two years have changed everybody's lives in ways that we didn't see coming.  I have a different job, I'm not seeing my family for Christmas, and it's hard not to have a fatalistic view of things, given what's been going on in the world.  So I didn't know I'd be HERE, mentally, when I reached this big milestone - but I guess I should have figured I'd be SOMEWHERE, I guess that's the best you can hope for these days, if you think about it.  Anyway, I'm HERE, for what it's worth, and that's the best thing about my blog, it's a routine that helps to see me through, like the year's essentially over but I'm already looking forward to what I can watch in January, which all starts in under ten days.  

Justin Edwards, who played the inspiration for the Ghost of Christmas Present in the last film, carries over to voice a cartoon pig, I think. 

THE PLOT: Whoever thinks that the countryside is calm and peaceful is mistaken.  In it we find especially agitated animals - a Fox that thinks it's a chicken, a Rabbit that acts like a stork, and a Duck that wants to replace Father Christmas.  

AFTER: It's always a bit rough to try to judge these animated films, which are largely meant for KIDS, by the same standards as a movie made for adults, like, let's say, a biopic about Charles Dickens trying to write a book.  A kid's just not going to get anything out of "The Man Who Invented Christmas", it's just going to confuse them, because they don't have the perspective necessary to understand a bunch of adult things, like worrying about supporting one's family or trying to write a book that will appeal to the masses, or bailing your deadbeat father out of debtor's prison. Kids are big balls of energy, with endless bouts of creativity, and they tend not to worry about whether the stories they make up are "good" or not, those are concerns that are outside their little brains, and society just hasn't beat them up enough yet for them to worry about the audience, they just barge right ahead with their stories.  Which I suppose is a good thing, let them have a few years before they're self-conscious about what other people think, there will be plenty of time to agonize over critical opinions later. 

And for the most part, films made for kids sort of reflect this, a lot of them are critic-proof, because film studios know that there's a market out there, parents all need films that their kids will stare at for 90 minutes or so, giving them time to get some chores done, or maybe just have a small window of peace in their busy, loud day.  So we tend not to expect too much out of cartoons made for kids, maybe that needs to change - sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who will watch a cartoon made for kids and say, "Wait a minute, is this REALLY a good idea?"  On some level, it just doesn't matter.  

Thankfully, whoever made "The Big Bad Fox and Other Tales" did at least take a few minutes for thought, they didn't just put a bunch of cutesy animals in a movie and make them dance and sing through the power of animation, they tried to tell a story (actually three stories) that had a point.  These are animals that are more like humans, they're neurotic and they make mistakes, they eventually succeed at what they're trying to do, but it just isn't EASY.  Every movie has conflict, sure, but it's a tough world out there for animals, especially when some of them want to eat the others.  There are a few Dreamworks & Disney films that have sort of hinted at this, but the general feeling is that kids just aren't ready to watch one animal eat another, and that's how you get characters like an unlikely vegetarian shark, as seen in "Shark Tale".  That's all well and good, but it's just NOT how the world works.  So, are we really preparing our kids for the world, or are we going to keep coddling them?  

So this is a cartoon world where the animals DO eat each other, even if we don't see it on camera.  The Wolf, aka Mr. Wolf, seems like a nice enough chap, but is he?  I can't help but notice that while he's chatting with the Pig, the Duck and the Rabbit, he's also preparing a fire and a pot of boiling water.  This hearkens back to the old days of the Looney Tunes shorts, Bugs Bunny would sometimes end up in a pot of boiling water and when he'd ask if something was cooking, he'd be told that rabbit stew was on the menu, and then he'd sort of figure it out.  In another segment here, the Fox can't seem to catch a chicken to eat, but then gets the bright idea to steal a few eggs and then hatch them, which will give him three chickens to eat, eventually.  But then this idea has disastrous consequences, when the three chicks mistake him for their mommy and bond with him.  

The first story is all about babies, too - only it revives that old chestnut about babies being delivered by storks, and not the proper medical way.  Again, this seems unfortunate that society was so hung up about sex at one point that we had to create an impossible fairy tale about birds carrying babies through the air, just because we didn't want to have difficult discussions with kids about how they come into the world.  Kids are smarter than you think, and they can handle a lot, what would be so wrong about them knowing how babies are born?  They see pregnant women from time to time, so what happens, the baby grows inside the mother and then teleports to somewhere else, where a big stork wraps it in a white cloth to form a carrying device, and then flies it back to the parents?  It's ridiculous.  Then inevitably in the cartoons there's some kind of mix-up where the stork makes a mistake, or switches the babies, or can't finish the flight, and thus we all realize the unreliability of a stork-based baby delivery system.  (To be fair, hospitals do make mistakes, too, it's rare but there have been a couple baby-switching problems.). 

In "The Big Bad Fox", the stork crashes into a tree, and needs to rely on farm animals to get the baby to the proper address.  Except the Pig, Duck and Rabbit have no idea where Avignon is in relation to where they live, they can't drive a vehicle, can't read a map, and they don't know how to deal with people and animals outside their little farm world.  (The Pig works on the farm, but the Duck and Rabbit are more like clueless visitors, this more or less checks out.  But the Duck can't swim?  This seems unlikely...) BUT, they encounter a lost Chinese Tarsier (?) in the woods, and come up with the bright idea to mail the tarsier back to China, and as long as they're doing that, why not just mail the baby to her house, while they're at it?  What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that plan?  

The third story here is a Christmas story, which is why I tabled this film earlier this year - I think it could have fit between "Nanny McPhee" and "Nanny McPhee Returns", but come on, who wants to break up that pair?  The Duck, Pig and Rabbit return, and while decorating the farm for the holidays, they mistakenly think that they've killed Father Christmas (Santa Claus) so the Duck and Rabbit decide to take his place, and take it upon themselves to deliver gifts around the world in just one night, just like he does.  Umm, don't get me started on Santa Claus, because then we're back on coddling kids, and not telling them the truth about the world, and really, it's a whole thing.  Would it really be SO wrong if the kids really knew where the presents come from?  Come on, if your kid has a learner's permit and still believes in Santa Claus, you might need to have a talk with him.

For the third film in a row, I've seen actors performing more than one role - of course, this is a lot easier with an animated film where the actors just provide voices, and if you've got talented voice actors who can do different voices, then why not?  In the third story, the Duck, Pig and Rabbit end up in an animal shelter, which is essentially a stand-in for a prison setting, and the "big boss" there is a bulldog who sounds almost exactly like Bob Hoskins, or perhaps Ray Winstone if Bob Hoskins is a bit before your time.  But it's really Adrian Edmondson, who also provides the voice of Rabbit, doing double duty.  Adrian's been around for quite some time, but he's most famous for playing the role of Vyvyan, the "punk" character on "The Young Ones" - but more recently, he played First Order Captain Peavey in "Star Wars: The Last Jedi", so let's agree that this is a versatile actor!  Now I really need to add him to my "Wall of Fame", my collection of 8 x 10 photos signed by "Star Wars" actors, and I have over 120 in the collection to date.  The problem with collecting anything - movies, comic books, autographs - is, what do you then DO with the collection, once it's grown large enough to be meaningful?  My BFF always jokes that I should open up a "Star Wars" themed deli and hang the autographs on the wall, as if those actors or characters all came in, had a meal, and signed a photo for posterity.  Someday...

Anyway, the animals here at least all end up learning something - or delivering lessons to the folks at home via their little morality plays.  The Big Bad Fox learns that there's more to life than stealing chickens, and he may be at heart more maternal than he thought.  The Duck, Pig and Rabbit learn in the first story that babies belong with their parents, and that you can't trust storks to deliver them.  And then in the last story they learn that Father Christmas is really real, just very short, but if you think about it, that makes it easier for him to get down the chimneys!  OK, well, as they say, two out of three ain't bad.  

I'm sorry if you were expecting MORE somehow out of Big Movie 4,000 - honestly, so was I, but I maybe need to learn something too, not to put unrealistic expectations on any one film, or on some quite arbitrary number.  SOME film was going to be Movie #4,000, but my system sort of prevents me from determining in advance what film that's going to be.  It's enough that I had another Perfect Year, but when I watched "Parasite" way back on January 1, it was quite impossible to see what exactly would result at the end of the year.  By the same token, I know my starting place for Movie Year 14, but there's just no way I can predict how it's going to end.

Also starring the voices of Bill Bailey (last seen in "Nanny McPhee Returns"), Tallulah Conabeare, Adrian Edmondson (last seen in "Star Wars: The Last Jedi"), Matthew Goode (last seen in "Birthmarked"), Celia Imrie (last seen in "A Cure for Wellness"), Phill Jupitus (last heard in "Shaun the Sheep Movie"), Marcel McCalla, Alexander Molony, Giles New (last seen in "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales"), Louie Loveday-O'Brien, Phil Whelans

RATING: 6 out of 10 Christmas gifts (that did not, repeat NOT, just fall from the sky)

The Man Who Invented Christmas

Year 13, Day 354 - 12/20/21 - Movie #3,999

BEFORE: Well, I'm hoping tonight's film helps me feel a little more in the Christmas mood.  Having to cancel our trip to Massachusetts hasn't been helpful in that regard - the two films that usually help me get in the holiday spirit are, of course, "A Christmas Story" (which usually runs for 24 hours on TV starting on Dec. 24) and "Scrooge", the version of "A Christmas Carol" starring Albert Finney.  For me, that's the definitive version, the 1970 musical that co-stars Alec Guinness as Marley's ghost. Classic - and of course, "Thank You Very Much" is the best song, the reprise always brings me to tears.  

I'll perhaps watch "Scrooge" tomorrow night, to follow this one - it won't count, of course, because I've seen it so many times before.  It might also be time to return to "It's a Wonderful Life" this year, I've avoided it for a long while because I got sick of it - but the Disney+ series "Hawkeye" referenced it in several ways, so maybe after the final episode of "Hawkeye" I'll give it another go.  In addition to Clint Barton and Kate Bishop watching the classic Frank Capra film, my sister pointed out that George Bailey and Hawkeye are both deaf in one ear, and Hawkeye's feeling down on himself and doesn't consider himself a hero, much in the same way that George Bailey didn't realize all the good he'd done in the town of Bedford Falls over the years.  Also, George Bailey's family disappeared in the alternate reality the angel showed him, then came back, and Hawkeye's family disappeared in the "snap" seen in the "Avengers" movies, then came back.  There's more, but no spoilers here. 

If I watch these previously seen movies, this will hopefully raise my Christmas spirit, and also keep this film posted on top of the blog for a couple nights, maybe I'll even wait until after Dec. 25 to watch film #4,000.  Morfydd Clark carries over from "The Personal History of David Copperfield", where she played Copperfield's mother and love interest.  Tonight she plays Charles Dicken's wife, which I guess we've established is sort of in the same ballpark?

THE PLOT: The journey that led to Charles Dickens' creation of "A Christmas Carol", a timeless tale that would redefine Christmas. 

AFTER: Really, nothing makes more sense than a little back-to-back Dickens this week.  We saw David Copperfield write down names that he liked, or phrases he wanted to remember, and apparently that was Dickens' process also - he'd see a name like Marley or Fezziwig and jot it down, thinking he'd find a place for it later.  So of course this is all idle speculation, but clearly SOMETHING inspired Dickens to write what's now considered the classic Christmas novel.  And I think he was the first author to combine a holiday story with a horror story, really this wouldn't happen again until the invention of the horror movie, and films like "Black Christmas" or "Silent Night, Deadly Night" came along - and I think we can all agree that "A Christmas Carol" is a lot classier, right? 

Good artists borrow a little bit from here and there, and of course great artists borrow A LOT from everywhere - this film surmises that an Irish nanny in the Dickens household mentioned that her granny believed that Christmas Eve was when the barrier between the natural and supernatural world was thinnest, and ghosts could cross over.  OK, so that nanny's granny was probably mixing up Christmas Eve with All Hallow's Eve, I'll bet, but that was perhaps enough to inspire Dickens to put ghosts into a Christmas story, and darned if that wasn't like the first person to mix peanut butter and chocolate.  Supposedly Dickens took these walking tours of London when he needed inspiration, and who's to say he didn't see an old man attending the funeral of his business partner one day, and who's to say that old man didn't say "Humbug"?  All Dickens had to do then was come up with the name "Scrooge", and this story practically writes itself.

Well, not exactly - the film starts with Dickens after his celebrity book tour of America, and the three "flops" that came after it.  So he's staring at a blank page, quill pen at the ready, but with no idea what to write.  You KNOW I hate films that focus on writer's with writer's block (or a "blockage" as the Brits call it.).  Real motivation probably came from the fact that Dickens had four small children, with one more on the way, and had just moved the family into a very nice townhouse, and the renovations were costing him a fortune.  Sure, he'd write a story about Christmas, if it happened to be coming up on the calendar.  More inspiration came from the fact that he'd borrowed heavily during this blockage period, and his loans were coming due, still he had to ask for an extension, which raised the interest. 

You put all this together, the old man at the funeral, the clerk at the loan office, and the need for an unsavory central character, and that's how you get Ebenezer Scrooge, I suppose.  But that can't be the whole story, because writing a story that will reach people involves drawing from real life, and that means drawing from his own life, in addition to what he sees around town.  So, really, Scrooge is also part Dickens, and Dickens is part Scrooge - Dickens is also part Bob Cratchit, struggling to feed a large brood of children.  Charles' wife also accuses him of working too hard on his novels, thus putting work before family, a very Scrooge-like thing to do. It's kind of like how you play most of the characters in your dreams, Dickens was many of his characters in his stories and they were him.  Except maybe Tiny Tim, who was maybe inspired by that neighbor's kid with the bad cough. 

Once Dickens dreamed up Scrooge as the central character, according to this he acted out the whole story, and envisioned Marley and the three other ghosts coming to visit.  Here the film goes back to that double-role thing was saw last night, where the same actress played both Dickens' mother and girlfriend.  The actress who played that nanny also plays the Ghost of Christmas Past, and the actor who played John Forster (Dickens' friend/biographer/critic) also plays the Ghost of Christmas Present. Forster's character, a largish man, also poses in costume as the second spirit for the man hired to illustrate the novel.  

Dickens then, with Scrooge as his guide, goes on a tour through his own past and imagination, quite similar to the one Scrooge is forced to take within the novel.  Did the writing of the book go down exactly like this?  Was this Dickens' storytelling process?  Probably not, but lately it seems like for every story or movie, we also have to have the "behind the scenes" movie that tells us what influenced the authors, or at least what we believe may have inspired them.  I'm thinking about films like "Mank", "Professor Marston and the Wonder Women", "Mary Shelley", "Becoming Jane", "Howl" and many others. 

Also, if this story is to be believed, this writing process wasn't easy - the redemption of Scrooge wasn't originally part of the plan, and in the early drafts Tiny Tim died.  It was only when Dickens read the early version aloud to friends and family that he realized what a bummer the story was.  Perhaps he didn't think Scrooge could change because he didn't think he himself could change, remember Dickens was Scrooge, to some degree.  So sometimes a writer has to step away from his own story for a while, then look at it again with fresh eyes - when Dickens did that, it probably became obvious that this needed to be a story about redemption.  I mean, what was the point of writing about an evil miser if he's just going to stay that way, right up until the end?  Everybody can be saved, it's never too late, at least that's the theory in the world of storytelling.  

Once Dickens made that change, Scrooge gets redeemed and feels love for humanity once more, forgives all debts (yeah, right...) and keeps Christmas in his heart all year long, then WOW, what a story.  Dickens suddenly had like a real HIT on his hands, an overnight success, and the best thing about it was that it would become relevant again every December, like clockwork.  There's that old genius clock ticking again, the guy who invented serials and merchandising and book tours also somehow landed on the fact that some stories are evergreen and become relevant again with a flip of the calendar page.  AND he invented the Christmas/horror hybrid, that's no small feat - if you believe this movie, then Christmas as a relevant holiday was sort of dying out at the time, and this revived it.  Hmm, I'd like to see the paperwork on that - but then a few years later Coca-Cola and Macy's got on board, and, well, this train shows no signs of slowing down any time soon.  I just saw a statistic about the declining interest in America in religion, but jeez, even if you're not religious you may love Christmas!  

And it all happened because one author with a dwindling bank account was on a deadline...that's food for thought for sure. I've always said that you only need one great idea to be successful in this world - I just read about a 96-year old man who passed away, he's credited with popularizing the artificial Christmas tree, shortly after World War II.  While he didn't invent the idea of the artificial tree, he repurposed materials from a brush-making company to create a very natural looking one, and turned that into a million-dollar business.  But I digress.

So today, we celebrate the anniversary of the publication of "A Christmas Carol", on December 19, 1844.  Yeah, I know I'm posting this on December 20, but I started watching the film on December 19.  So happy 177th anniversary to this book!  If nothing else, the book depicts the "classic" elements of Victorian Christmas celebrations - the family gatherings, dancing, games, seasonal food and drink, and the festive spirit.  I hope you enjoy this week as such, but if, like me, your holiday is on hold, well, then, there's always next year. 

Also starring Dan Stevens (last seen in "Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga"), Christopher Plummer (last seen in "Malcolm X"), Jonathan Pryce (last seen in "The Wife"), Simon Callow (last seen in "Victoria & Abdul"), Donald Sumpter (last seen in "The Constant Gardener"), Miriam Margolyes (last heard in "Early Man"), Justin Edwards (last seen in "Yesterday"), Miles Jupp (last seen in "Greed"), Ian McNeice (last seen in "Town & Country"), David McSavage, Bill Paterson (last seen in "Miss Potter"), John Henshaw (last seen in "Stan & Ollie"), Annette Badland, Anna Murphy, Ely Solan, Katie McGuinness, Marcus Lamb, Pearse Kearney, Jasper Hughes-Cotter, Eddie Jackson, Paul Kealyn, Aleah Lennon, Ger Ryan, Donna Marie Sludds, Cosimo Fusco, Aideen Wylde, John Colleary, Sean Duggan (last seen in "The Professor and the Madman"). 

RATING: 7 out of 10 eel pies