Next came 2003’s “The Cat in the Hat,” which starred a post-“Austin Powers” Mike Myers as the titular anthropomorphic feline. A critical disaster, the film was so abominably beastly it caused the Seuss estate to enforce a ban on live-action adaptations of the author’s work being produced by Hollywood. In response, Hollywood made “Horton Hears a Who,” a computer-animated family comedy featuring the voices of a returning Jim Carrey and Seuss newbie Steve Carell. Released in spring of 2008, the film was a box-office smash and a critical darling, and rightfully so: “Horton” was heaps of fun and got right what “The Grinch” and “The Cat in the Hat” generally got wrong.
And now we come to “The Lorax,” which defies not the Seuss estate’s ban on non-animated adaptations; much like “Horton,” “The Lorax” is presented by way of computer-animation, and gorgeously so. Helmed by directors Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda, and writers Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul (the gifted foursome who gave us pleasing supervillain animation “Despicable Me” in 2010), the film had the potential to prove that animation is the one and only medium in which a Seuss adaptation can be done - it does so, but also proves that the medium is not a one-way ticket to success.
“The Lorax” is based on the 1971 book of the same name and is actually its second screen adaptation; there was an animated TV special aired in 1972 akin to the classic 1966 animated TV special of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” Like the book, the 2012 version carries a message that is pro-environment and anti-establishment; trouble is, it rams this message right down the viewer’s throat and rams pretty damn hard - you’ll be lucky if you’re not gagging come the inevitable, schmaltzy conclusion.
The film begins in a walled-up city called Thneed-Ville, a utopia where everything, citizens aside, is artificial: there are no animals, no insects, no dirt and no plants. All objects in the city are made of either metal, plastic or synthetics; even the trees in homeowners’ gardens are robotic, and come with a disco setting. Living in Thneed-Ville is Ted Wiggins (Zac Efron, “The Lucky One”), a 12-year-old boy in love with his redheaded young neighbour, Audrey (singer-songwriter Taylor Swift). Ted discovers that Audrey has one desperate wish: to one day see with her very own eyes a real-life tree.
Realising that he can claim Audrey’s heart by presenting her with such a precious object, Ted, on the advice of his giddy grandmother (the legendary Betty White), sneaks outside of the city to meet the Once-ler (Ed Helms, “The Hangover Part II”), a reclusive stranger hiding inside a dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere. As it turns out, the Once-ler knows a lot about trees and begins to recite to young Ted a wonderful story.
The story is as such. One day, many years ago, the Once-ler stumbled upon a luxurious land filled with towering trees and cute little forest critters. Needing a tree for his mysterious invention, he chopped one down, and from the stump sprung the Lorax (Danny De Vito, “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”), the mustachioed, orange-coloured, shin-high guardian of the forest and self-enforced speaker for the trees. Grumpy and stubborn but charming and endearing, the Lorax tenaciously protects his land, and was none too happy with the Once-ler’s forest-scarring actions. And thus begins a heartwarming fable about the importance of nature and the evils of corporate business.
Like the ‘72 television special, “The Lorax” is a musical, although not a fully committed one: the amount of musical numbers featured in the film (which range from the cloying to the rocky) is four, I believe. And of these four extended sequences of singing and dancing, you’d be hard-pressed to get me to repeat any of the lyrics or hum any of their melodies, and that’s not just because I’m no singer or hummer; I just can’t remember them.
Yes, as a musical, “The Lorax” is a bit of a dog’s dinner, and I can’t quite imagine the official soundtrack topping the charts, but it makes up for this with the appealing charm it has at its immediate disposal. This charm comes down to a small, but effective number of elements. For one, there’s Danny DeVito, whose strangely soothing voice brings the Lorax to life in tantalising fashion, done so without the need for irritating flamboyancy. Secondly, there’s the animation, which vividly creates a richly rendered, candy-coloured world filled with lovable characters designed to appeal; it’s a majestic and luxurious visual feast. Thirdly, the never-ending slapstick, which is inventive enough, playful enough and lively enough to just about justify its constant presence, successfully providing a few smiles, titters and giggles along the way.
And finally, we have the simple, undeniable fact that the film’s clearly stated intentions are good and noble, even though it sacrifices the endearing simplicity of its cherished source material and even when its moral message is on the verge of choking the audience. I think the film will work splendidly with younger viewers, while those teenaged and up will find it at least tolerable. Mostly decent and occasionally quite delightful, “The Lorax” is no “Horton Hears a Who,” but it’s certainly not “The Cat in the Hat” either; it’s just “The Lorax,” and I see nothing wrong with that.
6/10
No comments:
Post a Comment