
I’m “biast” (con): mostly not a fan of the Disney live-action remakes
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
If you hadn’t already noticed that Disney has — for some *cough* mercenary *cough* reason — embarked on a project to produce live-action remakes of all its classic animated films, 2019 is the year you will no longer be able to avoid this depressing reality. After 2015’s Cinderella, 2016’s The Jungle Book and 2017’s Beauty and the Beast, this year will bring, in rapid succession over the next few months, new versions of Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King. Might as well lie back and enjoy this forced march of nostalgia, because it will be tough to avoid, the way saturation marketing works these days.
First up is Dumbo, the most soulless of the remakes so far, and the one that bears the least resemblance to its progenitor movie. In the way of his other recent fantasy projects — Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, Dark Shadows, Alice in Wonderland — director Tim Burton continues his campaign to convince us that he has become a parody of himself. (His Big Eyes is great. Maybe he needs to stick to quirk-tinged true stories these days.) Burton, again more devoted to baroque visual curlicues here than to emotional authenticity, manages to sap the formerly charming little weirdo bullied baby elephant of his sweetness and, ironically, the truth of his story. (Ahem! If Burton had turned this into Big Ears, it might have been great.) In the same way that fiction can often have more to say than reality, stylized animation can often have a bigger impact than “live action.” Sometimes sincerity and plausibility are better conveyed via simple sketches full of passion than via ostensibly photorealistic CG rendering drained of all character.

I mean! Add 80 years of social-justice-warriorhood on from the original 1941 Dumbo and combine it with a vaguely realistic CGI baby elephant with big blue eyes, and you end up with a primary response to Burton’s Dumbo that is this: Why are our (semi)sentient, obviously emotional cousins being held captive in this nightmare circus?! Sure, yes, this Dumbo is set in 1919, long before there was any sort of mass cultural appreciation for the fact that *checks notes* highly social, highly intelligent elephants are not performing monkeys, and performing monkeys shouldn’t be performing monkeys either anyway. And yes, this Dumbo waves an amorphous hand at the notion that our animal cousins shouldn’t be forced to perform for the amusement of us humans. But this is still a movie that is all about cruel captivity and coerced entertainment… you know, for kids!
And yet, the movie’s bizarre inability to read the cultural room while it thinks it is doing precisely that is the least bad thing about this new Dumbo. For one perplexing thing, it’s tough to call this “live-action” when so much of it is CGI anyway, from the clearly fakey baby elephant with the enormous ears that allow him to fly, to the weirdly anachronistic post-steampunk yet somehow 1950s-ish-retro-future vibe of the production design — this is, recall, set in 1919 — to the impossibly golden sunlight and impossibly mystical fairway-esque glow that allegedly drenches much of what we see here. Very little in this movie, beyond the faces of the human cast, looks actually real, or strikes with much visceral impact.

All the people — too many people! — is a problem, too. This Dumbo, scripted by Ehren Kruger (Ghost in the Shell, Transformers: Age of Extinction), absolutely piles on the human characters yet has no idea who its protagonist is. It’s not Dumbo, unlike in the original film, who is more like a pet than anything else. But is it young Milly Farrier (Nico Parker), a child of the traveling Medici Bros Circus, into which Dumbo is born, who deploys her interest in science to craft an ill-defined empirical method to train the little elephant to use his oversized ears to fly? Is it her dad, Holt (Colin Farrell: Widows, The Beguiled), newly returned from the Great War minus an arm but eager to get back to the stunt horse-riding that had been his living before, but now corralled into elephant wrangling? Is it circus master Max Medici (Danny DeVito: The Lorax, I’m Still Here) — there is, in fact, no other brother — who agrees to a partnership with putative villain V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton: American Assassin, Spider-Man: Homecoming) to bring his entertainers to Vandevere’s proto-Disneyworld park Dreamland, at New York’s Coney Island? Is it Vandevere’s star trapeze artist, Colette Marchant (Eva Green: Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, The Salvation), who isn’t the accomplice of her boss/boyfriend that she appears to be at first?

It’s none of them, and all of them… and they’re all a bit blah to boot. Dumbo has no idea what it wants to say, or whose journey this is. It’s a hugely unsatisfying mishmash in which characters across the spectrum behave in wildly inconsistent and often outright absurd ways depending on the needs of the overly complicated plot. (Why does Dumbo sometimes seem to understand what the humans are saying to him, and sometimes not? Why does no one ever rehearse their circus shows with Dumbo in the arenas and with the distractions that his actual performances will have? Why does the movie require Vandevere behave so outrageously stupidly in the finale, when the ridiculous stakes were already plenty high enough?) Everything here is irritatingly calculated and blatantly constructed, right down to the “Pink Elephants on Parade” sequence that stops the action, such as it is, in its tracks, and has absolutely no bearing on anything at all here, except that clearly someone felt it needed to be included, because it’s an iconic element of the 1941 film.
Perhaps the most telling thing about this new Dumbo is that it features a bit in which customers at Vandevere’s Dreamland are eager to buy the stuffed toy Dumbos that are on sale in advance of the little pachyderm’s big debut there. The movie doesn’t seem to realize that this should be cast as a condemnation of the awful commodification of a living creature who has had no say in his monetization. It’s played as a joke, or, at best — or, perhaps, at worst — as a cynical, winking admission that this is just how the world is. Get your plush Dumbo at the Disney Store in your local mall now!


















No “semi” needed! As you say right after, elephants are highly social and highly intelligent beings — all the evidence points to them being people, full stop.
Burton only seems to be able to deploy Extreme Cinematography. Many of his previous films were all Unvarying Gloom, while this one seems all Golden Light. (Makes me wonder if I should rewatch Batman and Batman Returns to see if they’ve been visited by the Suck Fairy.)
It might turn out horribly, but I still think they should fast-track a live-action Moana starring Dwayne Johnson and Auli’i Cravalho, who are pretty much the real-life physical versions of the characters they voice. They might even throw in Lin-Manuel Miranda singing “We Know the Way” as part of the crew on the voyager boats…
I re-watched Batman Returns about two years ago and absolutely loved every minute of it, seeing so much more in it now than I did when it came out. (Although Batman, watched again at the same time, was not as interesting.) Returns has so much gloriously untrammeled strangeness. It’s messy and ugly in a mesmerising way and stuffed full of eccentric detail and witty lines, courtesy of screenwriter Daniel Waters. Waters described his idea for a Catwoman movie post-Returns and it makes me pine for what might have been: Selina Kyle leaves Gotham for LA which is run by three homicidal asshole superheroes and Selina has to become Catwoman and defeat them in “the most trickstery, anti-social way”.
I do remember liking it, a lot more than even Batman. I felt it was more cohesive and more thoroughly faithful to Burton’s vision. Elfman’s score was more vivid. Keaton has always been one of my favorite Batmans, and Michelle Pfeiffer is a goddess in that film — I remember being disappointed that her Catwoman never showed up beyond that one movie, especially after that tease in the final scene.
Okay, now you’ve convinced me to rewatch it. :-)
You could see immediately from the trailer that Disney has run as far as possible from the 1941 original because it simply doesn’t translate to 21st century taste. The original took the contemporary circus milieu of animals forced to perform for human amusement as much for granted as Moby Dick takes the slaughter of whales, and that has to be put safely in a barbarous past. The original also took a nasty shot at the bitter animators’ strike at Disney — a bunch of drunken clowns go off singing “We’re gonna ask the big boss for a raise,” leaving their tipped over booze bottle to get Dumbo accidentally roaring drunk. Can’t mock working people like that. Most of all, Disney can’t use the hipster crows, who first recognize Dumbo’s talent and give him the self-confidence to use it. You couldn’t put them on screen today unless somebody like Jordan Peele was directing. So Disney is stuck with a couple of cute moppets that the kids are supposed to identify with and a routine corporate villain that looks like, well, Disney reworking its old properties as pre-sold cash cows.
The original is tied with Mary Poppins for my favorite Disney film. I can’t think of another movie with a main character that doesn’t say a word, yet brings the feels every single scene. When I was a kid, I never identified much with the knights and princes and princesses in most kid’s movies, but Dumbo, full of working class people trying to get by in a tough world, I could understand that. I was the only Asian kid at my school for years, and for years the other kids made fun of me with racist Chinese “jokes.” My Mom left when I was a baby and only visited once or twice a year. I knew exactly what Dumbo was feeling. I even loved the puns in the crows’ song – I still do, although now that I know they’re racist stereotypes I have mixed feelings. They were the heroes of the story when I was a kid, pretending to be tough on the outside, but doing all they could to help out a scared kid at his new gig. I wish this was a better movie – there are a lot of kids out there who would have appreciated a story about a quiet, shy weirdo who learns to fly. I sure did.
I thought the original was a distasteful exploitation back when the first one was made. Wondered how it was going to address the topic this time, as more and more circuses are abandoning live animal acts due to public pressure. Apparently it doesn’t address that at all. A movie that didn’t need to be made. Not like this.
Wait a sec… were you already an adult in 1941?
Seventy now, probably saw it when I was 10. Not first run at a theatre, but as a rerun. And it was the first one *I* saw! :D
Woah, that’s so cool! I wish I could have seen it at the theater. Were you and the other kids freaked out by the pink elephants scene, or was it not that big a deal at the time?
I thought they were kinda dumb, but at that age, my brother and I well just trilled that there were movies, and we got to go!
Well, it kinda *does* address the issue of circus animals, though only after embracing it wholeheartedly and basing its “entertainment” on that concept. In kinda a “have its cake and eat it too” way. And in way that is all about eventually coming to a conclusion that the audience has long since already gotten to.
These Disney remakes are only movies in the sense that the body snatchers in Invasion of the Body Snatchers are human beings. And I feel like Kevin McCarthy or Donald Sutherland (or particularly Veronica Cartwright at the end of the ’78 film) running around futilely trying to warn people of the gradual invasion. “They’re here already!! You’re next!!”
(lower lip trembles) Don’t remind us of remakes that are actually worthy I beg you!
Also, I’ve actually been going on a Jeff Goldblum deep dive lately and this new “Dumbo” is just reminding me that I can’t track down “The Tall Guy” anywhere….(MaryAnn will get the joke at least)
Heck, elsewhere I’ve compared the Disney remake situation (especially “Beauty and the Beast”) to Disney sending their animated features through not-yet-perfected telepods and each one coming out a synthetic, tragic mess…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Df-bLBTfI
I’m sick of this onslaught of soulless live-action remakes already. I can’t believe there’s THREE of ’em coming out this year.
I honestly don’t get the appeal of redoing great animated films as live-action. I like what MaryAnn said about animation; how, when done sincerely and creatively it can have a stronger impact than live-action. It’s absolutely true. It’s like there’s always something lost in translation with these remakes. Or it’s just boring to see the same thing over again.
Also I feel like animation is undervalued, honestly. People don’t get to fully explore what it can do…or they’re not given the chance, because it’s stuck in the category of “silly kid’s stuff” in most people’s minds. But I could rant about that forever, lol.
Actually to new Dumbo is perhaps the most subversive and anti-Disney movie ever. The writer of this review apparently didn’t pick up on that.
She did write:
But maybe you could explain what she missed, unless you just want to feel superior, rather than adding to the discussion.
That’s one line in the review and the review really doesn’t discuss that, which is really what the movie is all about. The last third act of the film delves into the evils of everything that the Disney company has become (gobbling up smaller companies and incorporating them under one large “big tent” while meanwhile disposing of many involved in the creation of what made those companies so special). Dreamland is anachronistic, but it is without a doubt representative of Disneyland and Disney World. Tim Burton hasn’t always had the best relationship with Disney and DUMBO is perhaps the most subversive and anti-Disney movie ever made, with the biggest irony being that the movie was made under the banner of the very company that it was teaching a moral lesson against.
Not everyone is going to like the same movies. We all have different tastes. However, it just really seemed to me this review glossed over what was the most important point of the movie.
Except the movie is NOT about that. As I said on Twitter the other day, what you’re talking about “feels like a shrug of indifference, like, ‘Suck it, losers, we run the world now and there’s nothing you can do about it.'”
Yeah, if your criticism of yourself involves a “sly wink and a nudge,” then you’re not really criticizing yourself; you’ve already given yourself a pass and you don’t intend to change.
If that was Burton’s intent, then — apart from MaryAnn’s critique of how effective it may have been — I don’t quite see the point. So he’s teaching a “moral lesson” to Disney by… making a film for them that will earn them millions more dollars, and updating yet another character that they can use as a theme park attraction? That’ll show ’em!
I’m suspicious of a company that releases a “subversive, self-critical” product while IN NO WAY intending to change their actual behavior.
Or — hear me out here — I disagree that it’s subversive and anti-Disney.
The trailer made me realise that the Uncanny Valley isn’t limited to humans.
Disney didn’t seem to notice that it cast itself as the villain in Ralph Breaks the Internet either. Who was it the Imperial Stormtroopers worked for again?
For one perplexing thing, it’s tough to call this “live-action” when so much of it is CGI anyway
This is what I don’t get about The Lion King. It’s still animated! What’s the point?
And with the new Lion King, they’re hamstringing themselves by insisting on photorealism — which means the animals don’t have the cartoonish expressiveness that conveyed emotion so powerfully in the original. And the scenery isn’t as vivid, either. The side-by-side comparisons going around the interwebs aren’t doing the new version any favors.
https://twitter.com/Fandango/status/1115967667851137025
At least Dumbo tried to change up the story (even if to questionable success). Based on the trailers, The Lion King (2019) is going to be a shot-for-shot remake of The Lion King (1993) just with photorealistic CGI. Given that I’m no real fan of the original*, I’m preemptively calling SKIP! (I’m skiping Dumbo because the original is racist and cruel, no matter how much my eldest daughter loves it from her childhood. I’ve advised her not only to avoid this, but to never rewatch the original. Let the good memories live unsullied by the reality.)
* Michael Eisner famously told the filmmakers in 1991 that they’d screwed up, because the rest of the movie was never going to live up to the opening sequence he’d just previewed. Eisner was not wrong.)
I love how Fandango thinks this comparison favors the new movie. :-/
Agree 100 percent.